(1.) THE erstwhile State of Hyderabad (Nizam State) achieved its independence on 17/09/1948 and merged into the Union of India. The Constituent Assembly adopted the constitution of India on 26/11/1949 and the Union of India became a sovereign, secular democratic republic on 26/01/1950. In keeping with its policy of agrarian reforms, the State of Hyderabad enacted the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; 1950 (for short referred to as 'the Act') which came into effect from 10/06/1950. This letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the tillers who were cultivating the subject land prior to 10. 6. 1950 as tenants and were evicted by the landlord in 1952. The Act granted them the status of protected tenants within the meaning of Sections 34 and 37-A thereunder and by the process set out under the said Act, they came to be restored with the possession of the subject agricultural land, admeasuring 3 acres and 16 gunthas on 2. 2. 1968 pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar, Hadgaon on 1. 2. 1968 and though this order had received its finality as there was no challenge to the same under the Act, the landlord filed Special Suit No. 116/1971 for declaration and possession and the same was decreed on 19. 9. 1976 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nanded. The suit land was directed to be put in possession of the landlord by evicting the appellants/tenants. This decree was challenged by the tenants in First appeal No. 595/1976 which came to be dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20th and 22/08/1985. This Letters patent Appeal has reached for final hearing in January 2003 i. e. after about 18 years and the ordeal of the tiller- tenants continuing before this Court for the last about 27 years will come to an end by this judgment. For this delay in ending the legal uncertainty, there could be several reasons and certainly one of the main reasons is the lack of adequate number of Judges at this Bench.
(2.) THE subject agricultural land admeasuring 3 acres 16 gunthas from survey no. 35 of village Sapti in Hadgaon Taluka of Nanded distirct undisputedly belonged to Shri Madhavrao s/o Jivaba Tekale, resident of village Shirad in the said taluka. He owned some other lands as well and the subject land was under the tenancy of Si tar am s/o Kondba Kumbhar, who evicted sometimes in 1952 i. e. after the Act was brought into effect and he had become a protected tenant on the subject land under the said Act.
(3.) SITARAM had approached the Tahsildar, Hadgaon for a declaration under Section 38-E of the Act in respect of the subject land after hearing him as well as the landlord, the Tahsildar made such a declaration vide his order dated 23. 2. 1960. The Tahsildar had passed this order in his capacity as the Agricultural Lands Tribunal within the meaning of Section 87 of the Act. This order was carried in appeal under Section 99 before the Deputy Collector, but in vain and, therefore, the landlord had approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of revision under s. 91. On 24. 2. 1961, i. e. exactly after one year from the declaration made by the Aqricultural Lands Tribunal, the Revenue Tribunal had set aside the declaration dated 23. 2. 1960 and remanded the case for fresh enquiry. The relevant portion of the said order (Exhibit 25/24) reads thus: "the consent petition before the Deputy Collector was attested by the Tahsildar, the learned Deputy Collector has not taken this petition into consideration. He has not given any ground why he does not accept the petition. The respondent is admittedly out of possession and has been shown as a dispossessed protected tenant in the work sheet of the Tahsil office. This fact is corroborated by the various Pahani Patraks on record. There seems to be no doubt that the respondent has been out of possession since 1952. The authorityof Shankarrao v. Bhanudas, Case no. 312/1959, decided on 25. 8. 1960, a dispossessed protected tenant is not entitled to be declared under Section 38-E, but it will have to be seen whether a petition under Section 32 (1) has been filed or the right to make one is still subsisting. An enquiry on this point needs to be made. It will also be further enquired into if the consent petition alleged to have been made before the deputy Collector is, as a matter of fact made by him and he knew its contents. The Tahsildar will enquire into these points and pass orders according to law. Declaration and orders of the lower courts are set aside and the case remanded as above.