{"id":70024,"date":"1982-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982"},"modified":"2017-09-25T08:57:02","modified_gmt":"2017-09-25T03:27:02","slug":"g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","title":{"rendered":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 34<\/div>\n
Author: R Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: R Rao, Sreeramulu<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Ramachandra Rao, J. <\/p>\n
 1. In this batch of writ petitions two common questions arise for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
 (1)  whether the proviso to S. 38-E (2) introduced by the  Andhra pradesh (telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act 2\/79 is unconstitutional?\n<\/p>\n
 (2)  whether the said  proviso which came into force on 11-1-1979  has no retrospective operation?\n<\/p>\n
 In order to decide the said questions, it is necessary to notice the facts which have led to the passing of the said Amendment Act 2\/79  The Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 21\/50 was enacted to amend the law relating to relations of landholders and tenants of agricultural land  and the alienation of such land  to enable landholders to prevent the excessive sub-division of agricultural holdings, to  empower Government to assume in certain  circumstances the management of agricultural lands to provide for the  registration of co-operative Farms and to make further provision for matters incidental to the aforesaid purposes.  The  said Act came into force on 10th June 1950  and it extends to the whole  of the Telengana area of the state of  Andhra pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
 2.  Section 2, the definition section, defines various words and expressions occurring in the several provisions of the Act “Tenancy” is defined in S. 2 (u) as meaning the relationship  of landholder and tenant. “Protected” is defined in S. 2 (r) as  meaning a person who is deemed to be the  protected tenant under the  provisions  of the Act.  The  section also contains definitions of the words ‘Agriculture” “Agriculturists” ‘land’ ‘lease’  ‘permanent lienation’  andother words or expressions which it  may not be necessary to refer in detail for the  purpose of this case Ss. 34 to 46 in Chapter IV contain provisions relating to protected tenants.  Chapter V  contains provisions relating to restrictions provisions relating to restrictions on transfe of agricultural land,  and the   other  chapters VI, VII, VIII and IX deal  with management of land,  prevention of fragmentation and consolication of holdings, co-operative Farms Constitution of tribunals procedure and power of  authorities under the Act chapter X Provides for offences and penalties and chapter XI  contintoution were cellaneou provisons.  But are mainly  concerned with the provisions in chapter IV relating to protected tenants.\n<\/p>\n
 3.  Section 34 defines protected   tenants’.  Claims relating to protected tenancy are decided by the  Tahsildar  under S. 35 (1) and against the decision of the Tahsildar, a first appeal lies to the collector and a second appeal to the board of Revenue under S. 35 (2)  and the declaration given by the  Tahsildar shall be conclusive that a person is a protected tenant  and his  rights as such shall be recorded in the record of rights and where there is no record  of rights  in such village record  as may be prescribed.  The  validity or correctness of a tenancy certificate issued pursuant to a decision under S. 35 cannot be questioned in any civil or criminal Court by reason of the provisions of S. 99 of the Act, which  bars the jurisdiction of a  civil Court to settle  decide or deal with any question which is  by or under the  Act S. 36 enables the  protected tenant to recover possession of the land on complying with the  requirements of the said section s. 38  confers a right  on the protected tenant to purchase the land-holder’s interest in the land  held by him as a protected tenant subject to the  provisions of sub-sec.  (7)  and other provisions of the said section.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  While so, by Amendment Act No. 3\/54 which received the assent of the president on 31st January  1954 a number of amendments were made to the Act including the insertion of s. 38-E.Under S. 38-E, the Government  may declare by notification in the Andhra pradesh gazette that ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which tehy are  entitled to purchase from their land holders in such area under any provision of chapter IV shall stand  transferred to, and vest in the protected tenants holding them, and  from such  date the  protected tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such lands.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  Under the  proviso to the  said section 38-E, where in respect of any such land any proceeding under S. 19 or S. 32 or S. 44 is pending on the  notified date, the  transfer of ownership shall take effect on the date on which such proceeding is finally decided and when the  tenant  retains possession of the land in  accordance with  the  decision in such proceeding.  The  explanation to the said S. 38-E (1) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  Explanation:- If a protected tenant, on account of  his being  dispossessed otherwise than in the  manner and by order of hte Tahsildar  as provided in S. 32 is not in  possession of the land on the date of  the  notification issued hereunder then for the  purpose of the  sub-section, such protected tenant  shall, notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any Court or the order of the Board of Revenue or Tribunal or other of any Court or the order of the Board of  Revenue or Tribunal or other authority, be deemed to have been holding the land on the date of the  notification; and  accordingly, the  Tahsildar shall notwithstanding  anything contained in the  said 32. Either  suo  motu  or on the application of the  protected tenant hold a summary enquiry and  direct that such land in possession of the landholder or  any person  claiming through or under him in that  area, shall  be taken from the possession of the landholder or such person as the case may be and shall be restored to the protected tenant and the provisions of this  section shall apply thereto in every respect as if the protected tenant had held the land  on  the date of such notification.”\n<\/p>\n
 6.  Under this  provision, a protected tenant who has  been otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar as provided in S. 32 is not  in possession of the  land  on the notified date for the  purpose of the sub-section, such protected tenant shall be deemed to have been holding the land on the  notified date.  Further the Tahsildar is  empowered under the said explanation either suo motu or on the application of such protected tenant to hold a summary enquiry and direct that the possession of such  land in the possession of landholder or any person claiming through or under him shall be taken from the landholder or such person  and restore  tot he  protected tenant and the   provisions of s. 38-E apply to such protected tenant as if he had held the land on the date of such notification.\n<\/p>\n
 7.  Sub-section (2) of S. 38 -E provides for  issue of a certificate in  the  prescribed from by the  Tribunal after holding an enquiry as may be prescribed, declaring the protected tenant to be the owner and the certificate shall be conclusive evidence  of the  protected tenant having  become the owner with effect from the date of the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner  with effect from the date of  the  certificate as against the landholder and all  other persons having any interest therein.  Sub-ss.  (3) and (4)  provide for  determination of the  reasonable  price of the  Landholder’s interest in the  land in respect of which ownership stands transferred to the  protected tenant under S. 38-E (1) and recovery of the price on default of payment by the  protected tenant.\n<\/p>\n
 8.  While so, two writ petitions W. P. Nos. 3279  and 3280\/77 were filed  in this Court by the petitioners therein alleging that they had entered into  agreements of sale from the landholder in the years 1963  and 1964  on payment of the entire consideration, and that they were put in possession of the same,  and that  they were in possession of the lands for over 12 years.  On 20-8-1977 they received a notice from the patwari stating that the  Tahsildar had passed an order for dispossessing them from the lands as the revenue Divisional officer granted a patta certificate under S. 38-E in  respect of the  said lands in favour of the respondents 4 to 9 therein who claimed to be protected tenants.\n<\/p>\n
 The  said notices were challenged in both the writ petitions on the ground that the  order for  dispossession was passed by the  Revenue Divisional officer without notice to the petitioners that they were in possession of the lands at the time the certificate under section 38-E were issued to the respondents, but they were not issued any  notice of the said proceedings, that the  respondents protected tenants on the issue of the patta certificates became owners of  the land, and  therefore the revenue authorities were no more competent to pass orders directing  dispossession of the petitioners under the provisions of  the Act as the  question relating to possession arose between  two rival owners and not  between a landholder and a protected tenant and that even otherwise the rights of the tenants stood extinguished on account of their  being  out of possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years  prior  to the agreements of sale in favour of the petitioners and  that the  protected tenants had also abandoned their possession over the lands and they were not dispossessed and  therefore, the  revenue authorities had no power to restore possession of the  said lands tot he tenants, and that even otherwise, the power to restore possession could  only be exercised before the  patta certificate under  S. 38-E was issued, but not subsequent to its issuance.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  The said  writ    petitions were contested by the  respondents denying  the truth and validity of the  agreements to sell set  up by the  petitioners and also their  being in  possession  pursuant to the agreements to sell alleging that their claim  was  based on some  bogus village records and that the  respondents being protected tenants.  The ownership stood transferred to them in  respect of the  lands held  by them  on the  coming into force of S. 38-E of the Act, and  that the patta certificate under S. 38-E was issued as the requirement of S. 38 (7) was fulfilled, and that  notices to all persons were issued at that stage, but the petitioners therein did not put forward any objections with regard to the grant  of certificate and that the  revenue records disclosed that the 3rd  respondent alone was the  owner and possessor and not the petitioners therein,  and that  the possession of the petitioners was unauthorised and the Revenue Authorities had powers to dispossess such persons in unauthorised occupation and restore possession of the lands to the protected tenants and  that the patta certificates issued were final and conclusive as they  were issued after following the procedure prescribed by S. 38-E read with the relevant rules.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  The writ petitions were  heard and disposed of by jeevan Reddy, J. Holding as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 (1)  the provisions of S. 38-E of the Act are special beneficial provisions.\n<\/p>\n
 (2)  proceedings for restoration of possession could be taken before or after the issue of the  patta certificate  inasmuch as the protected tenants are conferred ownership rights from the notified date.\n<\/p>\n
 (3)  The Explanation to S. 38-E (1) empowers the revenue authorities to take proceedings for restoration of  possession of the   lands before or after the  issue of patta certificate under section 38-E (2).\n<\/p>\n
 (4)  The petitioner did not  establish by any record that they were in actual possession and therefore  no individual notices to them was  necessary.\n<\/p>\n
 (5)  the procedure prescribed under R. 4 by Affixture of a  provisional list and the notice on the village chavdi or at a conspicuous place in the village, and a  communication of the  said  notice to the landholder and the protected tenants was  valid and that any person having interest in the land could approach the  Tribunal with   objections which the tribunal would  hear and  dispose of  and if the persons were interested in the  land an opportunity wa available for  them to raise all their objections.\n<\/p>\n
 (6)  The provisions of the Limitation Act were not applicable  to proceedings before the Tribunal or to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and therefore the contention  of the  petitioners that the  protected tenants being out of  possession for  more than 12 years their rights stood extinguished was not  tenable.\n<\/p>\n
 (7)  Section 38-E (1) of the Act empowers the revenue authorities to issue certificates of ownership  to the  protected tenants and to restore possession of the lands to the  tenants if  they were  out  of possession of the  said lands even if they were dispossessed  otherwise than in accordance with the  provisions of S. 32 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 On  those findings, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  Against the said Judgment, appeals were preferred under Cl. 15 of the letters patent and the  appeals were heard and  disposed of  by Madhava Reddy, J. (As he then was ) and Narasinga Rao J. In c. Narasaiah v. Tahsildar, Mahabubabad, (1978)  2 APLJ (High Court)  36.  Before the learned judges, the  following points set out in para 9 of the  judgment, were raised:\n<\/p>\n
  (1)  After issue of a certificate under S. 38-E of the Act, there is no jurisdiction in the Tahsildar to restore the possession.  Particularly so, when possession is found  to be  with a third  person.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) Even  assuming that such a jurisdiction  is vested in the Tribunal or the Tahsildar, a notice was required to be issued to the  person in possession before  an order  for  restoration of possession to the protected tenant is passed.\n<\/p>\n
 (3)  The rights of protected tenant, who is out of possession for more than 12 years stand extinguished, in view of S. 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
 (4)  The proceedings for  restoration of possession under the Explanation to S. 38-E of the Act  can only be taken where a protected tenant was dispossessed, but not when he voluntarily surrenders possession.\n<\/p>\n
 (5) At any rate, without an order of eviction  of the appellants the notice  issued by the patwari  in question is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
 11-A.  The learned judges held on  each of the aforesaid points as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 (1)  once an ownership certificate is issued, the protected tenant himself becomes the owner and the  question of restoration of  possession to such owner is no more within the province of the  Tahsildar be that  proceeding against a trespasser or against  a rival claimant.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) Any  order passed by the  Tahsildar restoring the possession without notice to the person in possession of  the land is invalid, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
 (3)  The  provisions of section 27 of  the  Limitation Act with regard to the extinguishment of the right of tenancy are held  applicable  to a tenant, who is out of  possession for the  statutory period and the right of such a tenant to bring  a suit would be barred and he cannot  be restored to possession either on his  applicationor otherwise by the  authorities under the  Tenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n
 (4)  The proceedings for restoration of possession under the Explanation to section 38-E of the Act could only be taken in favour of a protected tanant who was  dispossessed in contravention of S. 32 of the Act and not in favour of one who had surrendered or abandoned possession, and  that the question whether a protected tenant was dispossessed or he had surrendered or abandoned is a  question of fact.\n<\/p>\n
  (5)  The order  of the Tahsildar restoring possession without  notice to the person in possession being  invalid illegal and violative of the  principles of natural justice, the notice issued by the  Patwari in pursuance of the order of the Tahsildar for  dispossession of  the appellant was  equally liable to be quashed on the same grounds.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  Subsequent to the aforesaid decision rendered on 7-4-1978, the  Governor of Andhra pradesh promulgated the ordinance No. 2\/79  on 11-1-1979  for amending  the andhra pradesh (Telangana Area)  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1950  and the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area)   Tenancy Act,  1956.  The said ordinance has since been replaced by the  Andhra pradesh Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 2\/79. Section 1 (2)  of the Act  says  that  the said  Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th January, 1979.  The proviso to sec. 38-E (2) has been replaced by following proviso:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Provided that where the land the  ownership of which has been transferred to the  protected tenant under subsection (10, is in the occupation of a person other  than the  protected tenant or holder of the  certificate  issued under that sub-section it  shall be lawful for the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said land to the  protected tenant or holder of the certificate, after giving notice of  eviction to the occupant there of in the  prescribed manner’.\n<\/p>\n
 12A.  After sub-section (4) of section 38-E.  The following sub-section has been inserted;-\n<\/p>\n
 (5)  Notwithstanding anything contained in  this  section or sec. 19 the collector  may, suo motu at any time hold an enquiry with a view to ascertain the genuiness of the surrender of the right made by the  protected tenant  under clause (a0 of sub-section (1) of S. 19, for the  purpose of effecting the transfer of ownership under this section, and  pass  such order in relation  thereto as  he may think fit;\n<\/p>\n
 provided that no order adversely affecting  any person shall be passed under this sub-section unless such person has had an opportunity of  making his representation thereto”.\n<\/p>\n
 12B.  In section 93, for the  expression and the  provisions of the Limitation Act,1908, shall apply for the  purposes of the computation of the said  period,” the  following has been substituted:\n<\/p>\n
  “and the provisions of section 5 and sections 12 to 24 of the  Limitation Act,  1963  shall apply for the  purposes of extension and computation of the  said period”.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  Now under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 38-E introduced by the amendment Act 2\/79 a procedure  has been prescribed  for restoration of possession of lands  to  the protected tenant or holder of the  ownership certificate under section 38-E.  Under this  proviso, where  the land, the  ownership of which has been transferred to a protected tenant  or holder of the certificate issued under sub-sec. (2) the Tahsildar is empowered to restore possession of the  said  land to the  protected tenant or the  holder of the  certificate, after giving  notice of eviction tot he  occupant thereof in the prescribed manner.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  In G.O. Ms. No. 2064 revenue (F)  dated 7-5-1980  Rules have been framed by the  Government in exercise of  the  powers conferred by section 97  read  with section 38-E  prescribing the  manner for  restoration of possession to the protected tenant or the  certificate holder.  Rule  1  empowers the Tahsildar to restore possession of the  land  to a protected tenant or holder of the  certificate after giving  notice of eviction to the occupant thereof in the  form appended to the Rules, giving 15 days time Under R. 2, the Tahsildar has to examine any valid and acceptable objections offered and pass suitable order of eviction after recording  the reasons  therefore.  Under Rule 3, if no representation is made  within  the given time  of 15 days the Tahsildar shall forthwith  proceed with the eviction of occupation upon  whom  notice has been served and restore possession of the  land to the  protected tenant or the  holder of the  certificate as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  The first contention  argued on behalf of the petitioners is that the Andhra pradesh (telangana Area) tenancy and  Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was enacted mainly to amend the law relating to regulation of relations of landholders and tenants of  agricultural land, and  not with regard to matters  rlating to transfer, possession or restoration of possession   of lands as between owners of the  lands and once the  owner ship has been transferred to protected tenants and\/or  certificates issued to them under section 38-E (1)  or (2) of the Act, the  protected tenants cease to be tenants  and the  jural relationship of landholder and tenant ceases and restoration of possession of lands to  protected tenants or certificate holders from the erstwhile  landholder or a third person in occupation of the lands would not fall within the scope of a  legislation relating to landlord and tenant and, therefore, the proviso introduced to  section 38-E (2) by amendment Act 2\/79 is ultra vires  the powers of state legislature we do not find any merit in this contention.  The legislative competence of the  state legislature  to  pass the impugned amendment Act is  beyond doubt the main Act as well as the amendment Act squrely fall within  Entry 18 of List  II  of the  seventh Sch.  To the Constitution, which  reads  as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Land that is to  say, rights in or  over alnd land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of  agricultural land; and  improvement  and agricultural loans; colonization.”\n<\/p>\n
 16.  This legislation  is a measure of agrarian reform enacted by the state legislature for achieving the objective of establishing a  socialistic pattern  of society in  the state within the meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the  Constitution. A legislation falling under  Entry 18 of  List II  may cover not only matters relating to relationship of landlord and  tenant; but all other matters relating to rights in or over land, transfer and alienation of agricultural  lands and other matters mentioned therein.  “Restoration of possession” of  lands to a tenant or a   protected tenant or to a protected tanant  to  whom ownership stands  transferred under section 38-E (1)  or to whom certificate  has been issued under  S. 38-E (2)  falls within the expression ‘transfer of agricultural land” or at any rate it is a matter falling within the  expression ‘land’ that is  to say ‘rights’ in or over the land’.  It is well  established that the various entries in the three lists in the seventh schedule of the Constitution  are  not  powers of legislation but fields of legislation and the said entries are mere legislative heads and are of enabling character, the  power to legislate being conferred by Article 246  and other Articles of the  Constitution.  It is equally well established that the language of the entries should be given  widest scope and each general head of  legislation would  extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which can reasonably  be comprehended in it.  We have earlier referred broadly to the general scheme and the several provisions of the Act  and mentioned that the main Act  has been enacted not only to  regulate the relationship of landholders and tenants of agricultural lands, but also  various other matters relating to  transfers of land, management of the said land or prevention of  fragmentation and consolidation of holdings and formation of co-operative farms.  The  amedment Act 2\/79  also deals with matters relating to agricultural   land  falling  within entry 18 of List II  of  the  seventh schedule and,  therefore there  is absolutely no merit  in the  submission of the  learned counsel for the  petitioners that the A.P.  Amending Act 2\/79  is ultra vires the powers of  the state legislature.\n<\/p>\n
 17.  Further the decision of he Supreme Court in sri Ram Ram narain v. State of Bambay,  is a  complete answer to this  contention.  In that case the constitutional validity of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment)  Act,  1956  for amending the Bombay tenancy and  Agricultural  lands Act,  1948  was challenged.  His lordship N.H. Bhagwati, J.  Speaking for the  Court held that the  object of the  1948  Act was to bring about such distribution  of the ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good,  and that that object was  sought to be achieved by fixing  ceiling areas of lands which could be held  by a person equitable distribution of lands  between landholders and tenants, transfer of lands by way of compulsory purchase by tenants in  possession of  the lands, disposal of balance of the  lands after purchase by tenants, prevention of concentration of agricultural  lands in the  hands of landholders, bringing the  tiller or the  cultivator  into direct contact with the  state, his lordship further observed that:\n<\/p>\n
  “the  enactment thus affected the relation between landlord and tenant, provided for the  transfer and alienation of agricultural  lands,  aimed at land improvement and was broadly stated a legislation in regard to the rights in or over land: Categories specifically referred to in Entry 18 in List I  of hte seventh Schedule to the Constitution”.  His  Lordship further held that  the heads of legislation should not be construed in a narrow and pedantic sense but it should be given a large and liberal interpretation, and that applying the said principle of construction, it was clear that the Act impugned there was covered by Entry 18 in List II,  and was a legislation with reference to ‘land’ and  accordingly negatived the plea of want  of legislative competence of  the  state legislature”.\n<\/p>\n
 18.  The aforesaid ruling of  the  Supreme Court  Court  directly  applies tot he impugned amendment Act 2\/79  which is also a  legislation with reference to ‘land’ falling in entry  18 of List II of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the  said Act is therefore within  the competence of state legislature.\n<\/p>\n
 19.  The  validity of S. 38-E was challenged in inamdars of sulhnagar v.  Government of  Andhra pradesh,  on the ground that the presidential assent was not obtained as required by art. 31 (30 of the Constitution and the same was upheld by a Bench of this Court thereafter the andhra pradesh (Telengana Area)  tenancy and  Agricultural Land (validation) Act, 1961  was enacted after obtaining  the  assent of the  president retrospectively validating all the  Acts mentioned therein.  The said validation Act of 1961  has been included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 20.  The vires of S. 38-E was again challenged in this Court in M. Shoukat Khan v.  State ILR  (1970) Andh Pra 1151  Where the learned  Judges Jaganmohan reddy C. J. And Sambasiva Rao, J (as he then was) observed that:\n<\/p>\n
  “A spate of legislation was under taken in respect of alnd reforms and the relationship between landlord and tenant in  order to ameliorate the condition of the mass of people who  lived, laboured.  Toiled and tilled the  land from the status of serfdom, and  unprotected tenancy, to the  conferment on them  of an interest in that land with the  ultimate object of making them  owners of the land.  Land belongs to the people who till the  land had become the policy of the state”.\n<\/p>\n
 21.  The learned Judges then  referred to the observations of the Supreme Court  in Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay  (supra) and observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “In furtherance of this policy, the erstwhile Hyderabad state also has passed a similar legislation which followed up the previous legislation that Government  the relationship of landlord and tenant but in a more comprehensive  way to keep in tune with the  changed policy of the state in respect of agricultural  holdings”.\n<\/p>\n
 22.  The learned Judges then repelled the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners therein  that S. 38-E infringed the  fundamental rights, and that it was also beyond challenge by reason  of the provisions of Art. 31-B of the  Constitution as the  validation Act has been included in the Ninth Schedule.  The division Bench, however struck down section 38-E and  the Rules made there under on another ground, Viz that section 38-E as it stood then suffered from several infirmities pointed out by them and was vague and unworkable.  Particularly having regard to the fact that  it was being given effect to 15 years after it was enacted.  But the point to be noticed for the purpose of this case is that the provisions of S. 38-E  as amended, were construed as provisions relating to agrarian reform falling within the legislative competence of the state as held by the  Supreme Court in Sri Ram Ram narain v. State of bombay, supra and it was also not open to challenge as affecting  the fundamental rights in part III of the Constitution having regard to the provisions of Art. 31-B and inclusion of validating Act in the  Ninth schedule it may be incidentally mentioned that the main Act, the  Hyderabad tenancy and Agricultural lands Act XXI  of 1950  has been included in the  Ninth Schedule as item 36 in the  year 1964.\n<\/p>\n
 23.  Sri Subhashan reddy contended that the proviso to S. 38-E (2)  introduced by the  Andhra pradesh Amendment Act 2\/79  seeks to overrule the judicial pronouncement of  this Court in C. Narasaiah v. Tahsildar mahabubabad, (1978 (2) ApLJ  (High Court)  36)  supra,  and that the  legislature  has no power  to make  such a provision.  In support of this contention he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in state of Tamil Nadu v. Rayappa .  In that case, the Entertainment Tax Officer,  after making a surprise inspection of a  theatre and finding that unauthorised tickets with forged seals  were being  sold,  and after giving notice to the   assessee,  levied entertainment  tax and surcharge on the price of the tickets which  has  escaped assessment.  The  assessment was challenged by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the  Constitution.  The  Madras High Court  held in sundararaja Naidu   v. Entertainments Tax Act,  1939,  had no power to reassess the receipts that  had escaped assessment.  By S. 7 introduced by the  Amendment Act XX of 1966, the  state  legislature enacted among other provisions S. 7 for validation of assessment  and collection of taxes.  The  reassessments in the case before  the  High Court were made prior to the coming  into force of the amendment Act.  1966.\n<\/p>\n
 It was contended that  those reassessments were validly protected by S. 7 of the amendment Act.  The High Court of madras allowed the writ petition and quashed the assessment on the  ground that the  power to reassess under S. 7 (B)  introduced by the  Amendment Act was incomplete and was  not exercisable in the absence of a prescription    as to limitation contemplated by the  section and hence S.7 of the validation Act failed to validate the assessments in question.  The Government of Tamil Nadu went up in appeal to the Supreme Court on a special leave.  Their  Lordships of  Supreme Court did not  go into the ground on which  the reassessments were  quashed by the madras High Court  as  their lordships were of the opinion that S. 7 of the  Amendment  Act was  invalid in so far as it attmpted to validate invalid assessments without removing  the basis of its invalidity.  But that case has no application to the facts of the present case.  In C. Narasaiah v. Tahsildar mahabubabad (1978 (2)  APLJ (High Court)  36)  supra, it was observed by the  learned Judges that once there was transfer to the protected tenant or a certificate was issued to him under S. 38-E, the  ownership vests in him, and that:\n<\/p>\n
  “Having regard to the language of the Explanation to S. 38-E (1) there cannot be any doubt that the possession  to a  protected tenant  out of possession could  be restored only before  a certificate of ownership is issued to him.  If the  intention of the  legislature was that the  restoration of possession was to be in favour of a person to whom a certificate was already issued,  nothing prevented it from  making sucha provision in that regard.  It could have said that  the restoration ofpossession could be in favour of the  holder of the  ownership certificate issued under sub-sec. (2) of S. 38-E of the Act.  It is altogether a different matter whether the legislature could itself confer   a power on the Tahsildar to decide questions of possession between an owner so declared and a  trespasser which obviously is not the scope and the object of the Tenancy Act”.\n<\/p>\n
 So far as the power of the Legislature to enact the Amendment Act is concerned, we haave already held that the  legislation is with  respect to ‘Land falling in Entry 18 of List II of the seventh  Schedule to the Constitution and,  therefore, the  Legislature is competent to  enact the Amendment Act 2\/79.\n<\/p>\n
 24.  In order to fill  up the lacuna mentioned in narasaiah’s case (supra) with regard to the absence of a provision for  restoration of possession of lands to a protected tenant to whom ownership was transferred under section 38-E  the state legislature enacted by Amendment Act 2\/79  the proviso to sub-section (2)  of S. 38-E of the Act.  Thus the proviso does not seek to or have the effect of overruling the decision in narasaiah’s  case  supra but  only makes  a provision for  restoration of possession of land to  a protected tenant or a holder  of the ownership certificate where the land is in the  occupation of a  person other than the  protected  tenant or the holder of the  certificate.\n<\/p>\n
 25.  In the same case state of Tamil Nadu v. Rayappa  (supra) it was  observed in para 6 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The legislatures under our Constitution have within the prescribed limits, power to make laws prospectively as well as  retorspectively.  By exercise of those  powers the legislature can remove the basis of a decision rendered by a competent Court thereby rendering that decision ineffective”.\n<\/p>\n
 26.  In Shri P. C.  Mills v. Broach Municipality,<\/a>   it was observed that ‘validation of a tax’  declared illegally by a Court:-\n<\/p>\n
  ‘may be done only if the grounds of illegality or invalidity are  capable of being removed and are in  fact removed and the tax thus made legal.   Sometimes this is done by providing  for jurisdiction where jurisdiction had not been properly invested before sometimes this is done by reenacting  retrospectively a valid and legal taxing  provision and then by fiction making the tax already collected to stand  under the reenacted law”.\n<\/p>\n
 27.  It was  observed in Narasaih’s case (1978 (2)  APLJ  (High Court)  36)  (supra) that there was no provision   in the Act conferring jurisdiction on the  Tahsildar to restore possession of land to a protected tenant to whom ownership has been transferred or certificate has been issued under S. 38-E and in order to provide for such a machinery the state Legislature intervened and enacted the  proviso by the  Amendment Act 2\/79  conferring such a jurisdiction on the Tahsildar Therefore the  proviso introduced by the  Amendment Act is well within the competence of state legislature being  a legislation  falling  under Entry 18 of  List II of the  seventh schedule to the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 28.  In janapada sabha v. C.P. Syndicate ltd,  their Lordships held as follows (para 10) :-\n<\/p>\n
  “It is open  to the legislature  within certain limits to amedn the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the  law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the legislature to say that Judgment of a Court properly constituted and  rendered in exercise of its powers in a  matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court”.\n<\/p>\n
 29.  In  the  instant case, as already held by us, the Amendment Act does not  seek to overrule the judgment in Narasaiah’s case (1978 (2) APLJ  (High Court)  36) (supra)  but the  amendment has been made with a  view to make a provision conferring jurisdiction on the  Tahsildar, which the Bench in Narasaiah’s case (supra) held was absent in the unamended provisions of S. 38-E.\n<\/p>\n
 30.  For all the foregoing reasons. We are unable to hold that the proviso introduced by the amending Act 2\/79  to S. 38-E (2) of the Andhra pradesh (Telengan Area) Tenancy and  Agricultural lands, Act, 1950  is ultra vires the powers of   the  state legislature.\n<\/p>\n
 31.  The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is, that by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 1 of the Amendment Act, the  amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th  January. 1979  and therefore it has no retrospective  operation and the proviso to S. 38-E (2) introduced by the  Amendment Act does not empower the Tahsildar to restore possession of lands to protected tenants,  where  transfer of ownership under section 38-E (1) or issue of certificates under S. 38-E (2) took place prior to 11-1-1979.  The submission on behalf of the petitioners is, that  the  expression in the proviso “where  the land the   ownership of which has been transferred to the protected tenant under sub-sec. (1)” shows that the proviso is prospective in operation and applies to cases where ownership has been transferred subsequent to the coming into force of the  said proviso.\n<\/p>\n
 32.  Sri Subhashan Reddy the learned counsel has invited our attention to a Ful  Bench decision of the  Bombay High Court in saraswati bai  v. Bhikshachand, , where the  learned judges construing the  provisions of Ss.  52 and 132  of the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarabha Region and Kutch Area)  Act, held  that on a  reading of the sub-sections together.  It appeared that  the  draftsmen had used the  three expressions has taken possession, has recovered and has failed in the  sense takes possession recovers and fails.  But,  that construction was arrived at by the  learned   judges  on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the said Act.  The  said ruling does not therefore render much assistance in deciding the question that falls for consideration here.  The question has to be determined primarily with reference to the scheme and object of the  Act and the  language employed by the amendment Act.\n<\/p>\n
 33.  In principles of Statutory interpretation by G.P.  singh, 2nd  Edition, it was observed at page 287  as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  “In  decisding the question of applicability of a particular statute to past events, the  language  used is no doubt the most important factor to be taken into account, but it cannot be stated as an inflexible rule that use of  present  tense or present  perfect tense is decisive of the matter that the statute does not draw upon  past events for its operation.  Thus, the words  “as debtor commits an Act of bankruptcy committed before the  operation of the Act.  As has been noticed before  the words if a person has been convicted” were construed to include anterior convictions.  The words has made’. Has  ceased’, ‘has failed’  and has  become may denote events happening before or after coming into force of the statute and all  that is necessary is that the event  must have taken place at the time when action on that account is taken under the statute.  The words dying intestate were interpreted by the  Judicial committee not as connoting the future tense but as a mere description of the status of the deceased person without any reference to the time of his death.  So the words “held on lease”, may be only descriptive land and may apply to lands held on  lease prior to or after  the coming  into force of the Act.  And   the words “when a person dies”,  may include a person  who died prior to the coming into force of the Act.  And the words “when a person dies”,  may include a person  who died prior to the coming into force of the Act.  The real issue in each case is as to the dominant intention of the legislature to be gathered from the language used, the object indicated, the nature of rights affected and the circumstances under which the  statute is passed”.\n<\/p>\n
 34.  Sri subba Reddy has invited our attention  to a decision in T. K. Lakshmana  v. State of madras, , where the provisions of Ss. 44-B (2) (a) of the Madras Hindu religious Endowments Act fell  for  construction.  S. 44-B (2) (a) conferred a power on the collector to resume to the whole or any part of any inam granted for the  support  or maintenance of a math or temple or for the  purpose of charity or service connected therewith on one or more of the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
 “(i) that the holder of such inam or part has made an exchange,  gift sale or mortgage of the same  or any portion thereof or  has granted a lease of the same or  any portion thereof  for term exceeding five years, or   <\/p>\n
 (ii) that the holder of such inam or part has failed to perform or make the  necessary arrangements for performing, in accordance with the  custom or usage of such math or temple, the  charity or service for  performing which the  inam had been made,  confirmed or recognised by the British Government or any part of the  said  charity or service as the case may be or   <\/p>\n
 (iii)  that the  math or temple has ceased to exist or the  charity or service in question has if any way become imposible of performance”.\n<\/p>\n
 35.  His Lordship Bachawat, J. Speaking for the  Court held as follows (at P. 1494):-\n<\/p>\n
  “The words ‘ has made’ in sub-sec. (2)  (a) (I) take  in all alienations past and future and not only future alienations or alienations made after the  section came into force.  If there has been any alienation at any time  the first ground exists and the inam may be resumed under S. 44-B.  The words has failed in sub-sec (2)  (a) (ii) and the  words ‘has ceased’  and has  become’ in   subsec. (2)  (a) (iii)  similarly authorise resumption of the inam if the other  grounds exist though they may have arisen  earlier.  Section 44-B (2) is in its direct operation prospective as it auhorises only future resumption after  it came into force.  It is not properly  called retrospective because a part of  the  requisites for  its action is drawn from a time  antecedent  to its passing”.\n<\/p>\n
 36.  Applying the principle  laid down in the aforesaid ruling the expression ‘has been transferred’ occurring in the amended proviso must be construed as  applying to transfers which took place both prior  and  subsequent to the coming into force of the amended proviso.\n<\/p>\n
 37.  Moreover, the  amended proviso provides only a remedy  for the enforcement of  an existing right of the  protected tenant or a certificate holder  to recover possession of the lands and therefore the amended proviso is purely procedural in character and  will apply to the cases of transfers both  prior and subsequent to the coming into  force of the  amended  proviso.  It is well settled that a  procedural law has retrospective effect,  vide Abdul karim v. Dy. Custodian-General,   Therefore we have no hesitation in coming to  conclusion that under the amended proviso the Tahsildar can exercise the power to restore possession of the  land to a protected tenant  or a certificate holder as the  case may be where he  is out of possession of the land.\n<\/p>\n
 38.  Our attention has been invited to an unreported  decision of Muktadar, J. In Jawarjmal v. Venkatam, Judgment in C.R.P. No.  6895  of 1978  and Batch dated 31-10-1979, where it was contended that  by virtue of the proviso to subsec. (2) of sec. 38-E introduced by the amendment Act 2\/79, the Tahsildar has been empowered to deliver possession, to a protected tenant, to whom the ownership stood transferred or the  certificate was granted under S. 38-E prior to the coming into force of the amended proviso.  The learned  Judge repelled the said contention with the following observations.\n<\/p>\n
  “It is to be noted that  this contention would have been acceptable  had the legislature  given retrospective effect, but  unfortunately for the respondents the amendment is prospective and it has come  into existence on the 11th January 1979.  There it cannot  be said that the respondents can take   advantage of this amendment which has not been given retrospective effect”.\n<\/p>\n
 But, no reasons have been given for coming to the conclusion that the  proviso  introduced by the  Amendment Act has no retrospective effect.  As already held by us, the proviso has been introduced by the  Amendment Act with a view to fill up the  lacuna in the  Act as pointed out  by the  Division Bench in Narasaiah’s case (supra)  and that the  amendment is only procedural in character, and that under the  proviso introduced by the Amending Act 2\/79, the Tahsildar is empowered to deliver possession or a holder of a certificate  under S. 38-E even though the  proceedings for  transfer of ownership had taken place prior to the  coming into force of the  amended proviso.\n<\/p>\n
 39.  With respect for the reasons already given, we are unable to agree with the view taken by muktadar, J. In  Jawarimal’s case (supra) that the amended proviso does not apply to cases of transfer of ownership  or issue of certificates under S. 38-E which had  taken place prior to the coming into force of the said proviso.\n<\/p>\n
 40.  It is contended by the  learned counsel for the  petitioners that even assuming that the  proviso empowers the Tahsildar to  restore possession of lands where the  protected tenant or holder of certificate is out of  possession, still the Tahsildar  has to hold a fresh enquiry as required by the  proviso read with the  rules made thereunder in G.O. Ms. No. 2054 revenue (F)  dated 7-5-1980  with regard to the  pleas raised by the  persons in possession of the land namely that the protected tenant had abandoned or surrendered his rights, and  that the persons in possession had acquired rights by prescription or adverse possession.  But, we do not think there is any merit in this submission.  It  has to be remembered that the  provisions of S. 19 (10 read with S. 38-E (5) provide for enquiries regarding the genuineness for  the surrender of possession of the land by a protected tenant and also provides for a regular enquiry under S. 38-E read with the  rules framed thereunder with regard to transfer of ownership and the issue of ownership certificates to  the  protected tenants, and these enquiries are to be made after giving notice tot he landholder and all other persons interested in the land, and  therefore whatever objections  are available to the landholder or to other persons interested in, or in possession  of the land must be taken at the stage of the enquiries made under the provisions mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
 It is well established that once a certificate under sec.  38-E (2) has been issued after holding an enquiry in accordance with the rules, it  became conclusive as between the certificates holder and the  landholders or other persons who were in possession of or  otherwise,  interested in the land in  respect of which ownership has been transferred to the  protected tenant or a ownership certificate has been issued under S. 38-E further even the   plea that a  protected tenant who was out of  possession would not be entitled to grant of a certificate of  ownership under S. 38-E should be raised in the proceedings taken under S. 38-E for transfer of ownership and issue of the ownership certificate and once  the  certificate has been issued after holding an enquiry in accordance with the  rules, the  same cannot be challenged in a  collateral proceeding  or by way of a civil  suit  as Jurisdiction of  civil Court is barred by reason of the  provisions of S. 99 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 41.  Thus at the stage of delivery of  possession under the amended proviso to sec. 38-E (2) read with the  rules framed  thereunder, it is not  open to the person in possession to once again  raise pleas or objections which  were  already raised in the  proceedings taken earlier culminating in the transfer of ownership and issue of a ownership certificate under S. 38-E of the Act to a protected tenat.  If this argument of the learned counsel for the  petitioners is accepted, it will tantamount to conferring a power on the  Tahsildar to go  into the validity or otherwise of the  certificate issued under S. 38-E of the Act by  the competent authority.  We do not think the  proviso can be  interpreted so as to confer such a power on hte Tahsildar, therefore we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the  petitioners that under  the  amended proviso the Tahsildar should entertain and determine objections based upon surrender, abandonment or adverse possession or objections as to the  validity of the  certificate issued under S. 38-E of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 42.  Another contention urged by the  learned counsel for the petitioners is that  in view of the ruling in narasaiah’s case,  (1978 (2)  APLJ  (High Court)  36)  (supra), the  persons  in possession are entitled to raise the plea that the rights of the protected tenant who was out of possession  of the  land get extinguished by  reasons of the  persons in possession of the land acquiring rights by adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
 43.  Jeevan Reddy, J. Held in Narasayya v. Tahsidar (W.P. No. 327\/77 dated 12-12-1977) that  the provisions of the Limitation Act were inapplicable to the proceedings under the  Act, but the  division Bench in narasaiah’s case 9supra0 differed with the said view and held that the  provisions of S. 27 of the limitation Act apply and the  rights of the protected tenant who was out of possession of the  land for over  12 years would  stand extinguished and therefore he would not  be entitled to recover possession of the lands from the persons in  possession,  but, as already held by us, the  question whether the protected tenant’s rights stood extinguished by adverse possession or not  is a matter to be agitated in the  proceedings taken for the  issue of a certificate under section 38-E of the Act read with the  relevant rules, and the same cannot be agitated after ownership has been transferred and a  certificate has been issued to the  protected tenant under S. 38-E.\n<\/p>\n
 A person having an interest in the land  or claiming rights by adverse possession in the  said land, should set up his objections or claims in the  proceedings taken under S. 38-E read with the relevant rules before  the Tribunal constituted for the said purpose and the Tribunal could then hear and dispose of the  objections and claims.  Having failed to set of the objections and claims at the stage of enquiry under S. 38-E and  the rule made thereunder it is not open to such persons to set up once again such claims or objections   after a certificate has been issued, and at the stage the proceedings taken under  the  amended proviso for restoration of possession of the lands  to the  protected tenant  or the certificate holder.\n<\/p>\n
 44.  One other contention urged is, that under sec. 38-E ownership of the lands held by a  protected  tenant stands transferred to and vest in him only if the said protected tenant was in actual physical possession of the lands and a certificate of ownership could only  be issued to such a  protected tenant in possession of  the  land and therefore a certificate issued under S. 38-E  without restoration of possession of the land to the protected tenant under the Explanation to sec. 38-E (1) is not valid.   Section 38-E (1) says that from the notified date the ownership of all lands” held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from  their  land holders in such area under any provision of this chapter shall subject to the conditions laid down in  sub-sec. (V) of S. 38, stand transferred to  and  vest in  the protected tenants holding them and from such date the  protected tenants shall be deemed to be the  full owners of  such lands.\n<\/p>\n
 Under the proviso to the  said  sub-section, where any proceeding under S. 19 or S. 32 or S. 44 is pending on the notified date, the  transfer of ownership of such lands takes effect on the date on which such proceeding is finally decided and when the  tenant retains possession of the  land in accordance with the  decision in such  proceedings.  With regard to a protected tenant who is not in possession on the notified date, the  Explanation to S. 38-E (10 provides  that for the  purpose of the said sub-section such protected  tenant shall “be deemed to have been holding the land on  the  date of the notification” and further empowers  the Tahsildar, to  restore posession of the lands to the  protected tenant after holding  a summary enquiry.  The learned counsel relied upon the ruling in Narasaiah’s case 9supra0 where it was observed that the expression holding necessarily means that they must also be in possession of the  lands as protected tenants and the  effect  of the Explanation is “that the protected tenant  is deemed to be person holding  the land,  but for  purposes of  conferring upon him the rights of ownership possession has to be restored to him”.  We are unable to agree with this  submission.  The words ‘held’ and holding have not been defined  in the Act, but the  expressions ‘basic holding’ consolidation of holding and family  holding  have been defined in the Act and in these expressions the word  holding cannot be construed as being  in actual possession.\n<\/p>\n
 45.  In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in state of A.P. V. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, ,  the  interpretation of the expressions ‘held and holding in sec. 3 (1) of  the  Andhra pradesh Land reforms (ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act 1 of 1973  fell for consideration it was contended for the appellant therein that the term ‘holding’ took  in its fold land held by  various person in various  capacities viz, as  an owner  as a limited owner. As a usufructuary mortgagee or as a tenant or as a person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a contract for the  sale of land  or otherwise, or in one or more  of such  capacities. On the  hand, it was contended for the  respondent that the   expression ‘held in the  definition of ‘holding’ contemplates ownership  with posession.  But  this  submission was repelled, and the condition of the  appellant was  upheld by their lorddhips in the following words  (para 8):\n<\/p>\n
  “The word ‘held’  is not defined in the  Act.  We have, therefore to go by the  dictionary meaning of the  term.  According to oxford dictionary ‘held’ means: to possess: to be the  owner  or holder or tenant of ; keep  possession of occupy thus,  held connotes both ownership as well as possession.  And in the context of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term ‘held’  only in the  sense of possession.  For example if a land is  held by an owner and also by a tenant or by a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale the holding will be taken to be the  holding of all such persons.  It  obviously means that an owner who is not in actual possession will  also  be taken to be a holder of the land.  If there was any doubt in this  behalf, the same has been dispelled by the   explanation attached to the definition of term ‘holding’.  The explanation clearly contemplates that  the  same  land can be the holding the land in  two different capacities.  The respondent in view of the  definition certainly is holding as an owner, although he is not in possession’.\n<\/p>\n
 46.  From the aforesaid ruling it follows that under S. 38-E (1), the ownership of all lands  held by a protected tenant stands transferred to him on hte notified date and a certificate of ownership can be issued to such a protected tenant even if he was out of  possession or possession  has not been restored to him in accordance with the provisions of the explanation and a  certificate issued by the competent authority under S. 38-E will be valid.  The  Validity of the certificate issued under Sec. 38-E after following the  prescribed procedure cannot be challenged again at the stage of delivery of possession under the amended proviso to s. 38-E (2).\n<\/p>\n
 47.  One of the contentions urged by the petitioners in Narasaiah’s case (1978 (2) APLJ  (High Court)  36) (supra) was that the proceedings taken by the Tahsildar or the Tribunal for restoration of possession  to the  protected tenants without issuing notice to the persons in possession were violative of the principles of natural  justice.  With a view to provide for such a notice, the legislature has intervened and introduced the proviso by Amendment Act 2\/79  and conferred jurisdiction on the  Tahsildar to restore possession of the lands to the protected tenant or certificate holder, and also provides for issue of notice and an opportunity to persons in possession to make their representations in accordance with the  rules made thereunder.  The  Rules made in G.O. Ms. No. 2064 Revenue (F) dated 7-5-1980  made under section 97 read with section 38-E requires a notice to be issued to the persons in possession and an opportunity to make their  representations before the  Tahsildar passed  any order under the amended  proviso for restoration of possession of the land to  the protected tenant or the  holder of the certificate as the case  may be.  Thus now,  statutorily the amended proviso provides for issue of a notice and opportunity to the persons in possession to make  their representations.  Hence the tahsildar has to comply with the  procedure laid down by the  proviso in which case  there will be no question of  violation of  principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
 48.  In the result, all the writ  petitions, except W.P. No. 1731  of 1980 are dismissed, but  in the circumstances without costs.  Advocate’s fee rs. 200\/- in each writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 49.  In W.P. no. 1731 of 1980   it is urged by the learned counsel for the  petitioner that a notice was issued by the Tahsildar dispossessing the petitioner without giving him a prior notice as required by the  amended proviso.  Therefore, the  impugned notice to that extent is illegal and  is liable to be quashed.  It is open to the Tahsildar to take proceedings afresh in accordance with law and after complying with the amended proviso and the Rules made thereunder.  The writ petition is  partly allowed accordingly to the extent mentioned above.  No order as to costs Advocate’s fee Rs. 200\/-  in  this  writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 50. Order  accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 34 Author: R Rao Bench: R Rao, Sreeramulu JUDGMENT Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions two common questions arise for consideration: (1) whether the proviso to S. 38-E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"47 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\"},\"wordCount\":9476,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\",\"name\":\"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"47 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982","datePublished":"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982"},"wordCount":9476,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982","name":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T03:27:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chennaiah-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-on-31-august-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Chennaiah And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 31 August, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}