RANGNATH Vs. DAULATRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by special leave of this Court it would be noticed that the appellant has endeavored on one ground or the other to get the 15 acres and 14 gunthas of land in Osmanabad which at one time formed part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and eventually came to be a part of the State of Maharashtra. The disputed land is comprised in Survey No. 206 / 8. There is no dispute that the appellant was the Inamdar of this land. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 being Hyderabad Act No. VIII of 1955 (hereinafter called the Abolition of Inams Act) came into force on its publication in the gazette on the 20th July, 1955. The Abolition of Inams Act was amended by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1956 and was further amended by Bombay Act 64 of 1959 which came into force on 1 st July, 1960. It is no longer in controversy that the Abolition of Inams Act became applicable to the appellant's inam by virtue of the amended provisions on 1-7-1960 as a result of which under Section 3 appellant's Inam was abolished and vested in the State. Upon its vesting, certain consequences followed which will be adverted to hereinafter in this judgment.

(2.) The first round of litigation started by the appellant against respondent No. 1 treating him as his tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Hyderabad Act No. XXI of 1950 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act) was started by the appellant by serving a notice on the first respondent under Section 44 of the said Tenancy Act. The appellant claimed in that proceeding that the bona fide required the land for cultivating it personally and hence after service of notice purporting to terminate the tenancy by the 31 st day of December, 1958 he proceeded to file an application on 18-3-1959 for possession of the land under Section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act. The Naib Tehsildar, Land Reforms, Osmanabad rejected the resumption application of the appellant by his order dated 22-10-1959 holding against him on merits that he has made out no case for termination of the tenancy. The appellant went up in appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms Osmanabad by his order dated 25-5-1962. The Deputy Collector allowed the appellant to resume the disputed lands in Survey No. 206 holding in his favour on merits. Respondent No. 1 went up in revision. The Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision of respondent No. 1 by its order made on 15-10-1962. It took the view accepting a new stand taken on behalf of the tenant respondent No. 1 that after the abolition and vesting of the appellant's Inam the said respondent who was in possession of the land covered by the Inam as a tenant holding from the Inamdar had acquired all the rights of an occupant in respect of such land under Section 6(1)(a) of the Abolition of Inams Act. The appellant moved the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in Special Civil Application No. 1881 of 1962. Agreement with the view of the Revenue Tribunal the Special Civil Application was dismissed by the High Court on 26-9-1963.

(3.) The second round of fight culminating in the present appeal started between the parties when proceedings under Section 2A which was introduced in the Abolition of Inams Act by Section 6 of Bombay Act, 64 of 1959 were initiated before the Officer authorised by the State Government to decide certain questions relating to Inams. The Tehsildar gave a notice to respondent No. 1 for payment of price in lieu of his having acquired the right of an occupant in the land in accordance with Section 6 of the Abolition of Inams Act. The appellant filed his objection and asserted that respondent No. 1 had not become the occupant of the land under the provisions of law aforesaid. Various questions were raised by him. The Deputy Collector decided the matter in the first instance by his order dated 30-11-1962. He held that the land was granted to the appellant for his service as Mahajan; it could, therefore, be deemed to be a Watan land. He further held that the provisions of Section 6 of Abolition of Inams Act were applicable and the date of vesting of the Inam was I st July, l960 and not 20th July, 1955. Since he was not the Officer to decide the question of possession under Section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, he remained content by saying in his order dated 30-11-1962. "The land in question being the Watan land, shall be resumed and vested in Government with effect from 1 st July, 1960 and the person in possession of the land at the time of vesting shall be entitled to occupancy right under Section6(1) of the Act in respect of the said land. " He finally directed that a copy of this order be sent to the Tehsildar Osmanabad for further necessary action. The Tehsildar by his order dated 15-7-1963 decided the matter in favour of the first respondent and held him to be a tenant in possession of the land on the date of vesting of the Inam and hence a person acquiring the rights of an occupant under Section 6(1). The objection of the appellant was rejected by the Tehsildar.