DATTATRAYA SADASHIV DHOND Vs. GANPATI RANGHU GAOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications raise questions relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1963 was the holder of two Madam Mash Inam (Personal Inam) lands. Opponent No. 1 was the tenant of the lands. As the lands were not service inam lands, the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) applied to them. On July 20, 1955, the Inam was abolished by the Inams Abolition Act. All the provisions of the Act did not however come into force on that date. On December 16, 1958, the petitioner gave a notice to opponent No. 1 terminating his tenancy under Sub -section (1) of Section 44 on the ground that ho required the lands bona fide for cultivating them personally. On March 31, 1959, he made an application to the Tehsildar for obtaining possession of the lands. On July 1, 1960, all the remaining provisions of the Act came into force. On December 15, 1960, the Tehsildar made an order allowing the petitioner to resume the lands. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector. It was set aside in revision by a Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that after the abolition of the Inam with effect from July 20, 1955, the petitioner had no rights left in the lands and that consequently the application made by him under Section 44 of the Tenancy Act was not maintainable. Against the order made by the Revenue Tribunal the petitioner has filed the present special civil application.

(2.) IN Special Civil Application No. 1435 of 1963 the petitioners are the holders of a land, which is said to be Deshmukh Inam. Such inams were abolished with effect from July 1, 1960, under Sub -section (2A) of Section 1 read with Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. On March 26, 1959, the petitioners made an application for possession of the land under Section 32 read with Section 44 of the Act. This application, has been rejected by the Revenue Tribunal on the ground that after the abolition of the inam, the petitioners had no rights left in the land and that consequently they could not resume the land under Section 44.

(3.) AS the questions involved in these applications arise in many other cases, they have been referred to a Full Bench..