State can’t throw out tenant farmers
Tenants can’t be evicted for not having payment proof, says HC
The Hyderabad High Court has held that endowments officials cannot throw out a tenant farmer on the ground of non-availability of receipts of payment with them.
Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali was allowing a petition by Mr Gannamaneni Venkatrao challenging an order passed by regional joint commissioner (RJC), multizone I, endowments department, Kakinada, confirming the order of the assistant commissioner, endowments, at Eluru cancelling the tenancy lease.
Mr Venkatrao took a 3.350-acre parcel of dry land in Madduru village of Kovvuru mandal in West Godavari, belonging to the Sri Chakravarthula Tatacharyula Trust, on lease and was cultivating the land and paying maktha (cist) regularly. On June 5, 2002, the deputy commissioner, Kakinada, confirmed the lease in favour of the petitioner for three years on annual rent of `20,100.
Later the endowments officials passed orders cancelling the lease, stating that Mr Venkatrao was not entitled under the landless poor category and that an eviction petition was pending against him.
Mr Venkatrao said he had been cultivating the land which was first leased to him 35 years ago. The endowments department rejected the claim on the ground that it did not have records prior to 1983-84. He said he belonged to the landless poor and was entitled to continue as a tenant.
After hearing the case, Justice Shavali said, “it is obvious that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the records prior to 1983-84 were not available. The reason assigned by the RJC for rejection of the claim is unsustainable.”
The judge said, “If the records are not available with the respondents prior to 1983-84, then the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce the cist receipts for the period prior to 1983-84 and consider his case on merits, but the respondents cannot reject (his claim) on the ground of non-availability of records.”
While remanding the matter to the RJC, the judge directed respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of lease of the land.