The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with tenancy proceedings initiated before a Tenancy Tribunal, holding that a third party cannot directly invoke the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when an effective statutory remedy is available.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed that questions relating to the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the effect of the repeal of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, should first be raised before the Tribunal itself through the procedure prescribed by law.
Background of the Case
The case arose from A.T.C. No.2 of 2024, where a tenant sought a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant of agricultural land and also requested permanent and temporary injunctions against alleged interference by the landlord. The Tenancy Tribunal issued notice and granted an ad-interim injunction while directing compliance with procedural requirements.
Sanaka Murali, who was not a party to the tenancy proceedings, approached the High Court through a Civil Revision Petition. He claimed independent rights over the property and argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, had been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022. According to him, proceedings initiated under a repealed law were unsustainable.
The tenant and landlord opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had no legal standing to challenge the proceedings without first becoming a party before the Tribunal. They argued that if he believed the case was not maintainable, he should seek impleadment and raise his objections before the Tribunal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court's Observations
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati examined the scope of the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 and referred to several Supreme Court decisions explaining that these powers are to be exercised sparingly.
The Court noted that where the law provides a specific remedy, litigants should ordinarily pursue that remedy instead of directly approaching the High Court. It observed that Article 227 is not intended to bypass statutory procedures or convert the High Court into an appellate authority over every interim order passed by subordinate courts or tribunals.
The bench observed,
"The Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227... would not be available where there is an alternative remedy."
It further emphasized that the High Court should exercise self-restraint and allow parties to invoke remedies specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure before seeking constitutional intervention.
On the petitioner's argument that the Tenancy Act had been repealed, the Court examined the repeal legislation and pointed out that the repeal clause preserved earlier operations and actions taken under the Act. The Court said that determining whether the tenancy relationship arose before or after the repeal required examination of factual issues, which could not be decided in proceedings under Article 227.
The Court also noted that the pleadings before the Tribunal indicated that the lease agreement commenced on 21 December 2023, while the tenant claimed leasehold rights extending over the previous five years. Whether these assertions were legally sustainable was a matter requiring evidence before the competent Tribunal rather than adjudication in supervisory proceedings.
Decision
Dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court held that the petitioner was free to take appropriate steps before the competent Tribunal in accordance with law. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the revision petition and should not influence the Tribunal while independently considering any applications filed before it.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to stand closed.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2001 of 2024
Judge: Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
Decision Date: 31 March 2026
