DEVIDASRAO JANARDANRAO Vs. RANGNATH RAMJI KIRDAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five applications have been heard together, as they raise a common question whether for the purpose of determining the area which a protected tenant is entitled to purchase under the provisions of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the area of land which the landholder holds outside the territory to which the Act applies can be taken into consideration.

(2.) THE facts in Special Civil Application No. 205 are that the petitioner is the landholder of survey No. 149-A measuring 7 acres and 38 gunthas. This land is being cultivated by opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the opponent) as a tenant, The area of a family holding in the local area in which the land is situated is 30 acres. The petitioner owns considerable land in Barsi Taluka exceeding 60 acres. The Tehsildar was of the opinion that as the total holding of the petitioner, including his lands in Barsi Taluka, was more than two family holdings the opponent was entitled to be declared as the owner of survey No. 149-A under section 38-A of the Act. He therefore, made final the provinsional declaration made in favour of the opponent. The Deputy Collector in appeal took a different view. He was of the opinion that the holding of the petitioner in Barsi Taluka could not be taken into consideration and that as the holding of the petitioner in the Maharashtra region, to which the Act applies, was less than two family holdings, the opponent could not be declared to be the owner of the land. He therefore, set aside he order made by the Tehsildar. The Revenue Tribunal was inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tahsildar. The Revenue Tribunal was of the opinion that it was necessary to determine the exact extent of the land held by the petitioner in Barsi Taluka and as no finding on this point had been recorded by the Tehsildar the Revenue Tribunal set aside the orders made by the Tehsildar and the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for determining the extent of the lands held by the petitioner and also whether his income would exceed the normal income from two family holdings. This order is being challenged in the present application.

(3.) FOR considering the question of law which we have to decide, it is not necessary o mention the facts of the other applications. I will refer to them later.