NAGNATHAPPA Vs. SHRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against an appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Aurangabad, who partly allowed the appeal filed by the occupant of the suit lands viz. the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1971 against the order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhir.

(2.) Survey Nos. 41 and 42 of village Parli were community service inam lands. The inams were abolished on 1st July 1960 under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the "Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act"). before the abolition of the inam, the Inamdar had granted lease for 20 years of Survey Nos. 41 and 42 to Nagnathappa (Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 344 of 1971) in 1944 by a registered Lease Deed. Nagnathappa sub-let a plot admeasuring 300'X500' to Srinivas (Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1971) on 14th April 1949 by a registered Lease Deed for 18 years. On the same day, he sub-set another plot admeasuring 200'X300' to one Ramgopal for 18 years by a registered deed. This Ramgopal, in his turn, sublet this plot to Srinivas on 6th June 1965. After the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act came into force, a dispute arose between Srinivas and Nagnathappa regarding the grant of occupancy right. The District Deputy Collector by his order dated 17th April 1970 held that Nagnathappa was entitled to be declared as an occupant under S. 6 (1) (a) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act in respect of Survey Nos. 41 and 42 including the two plots leased out by him.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this decision, Srinivas filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Aurangabad, who after hearing the parties, held that he was deemed to be a tenant of the Inamdar in respect of the lease that was granted to him by Nagnathappa and as he was in actual possession of that land, he was entitled to the grant of occupancy right in respect of that plot. So far as the second land was concerned, he held that he had obtained the least from Ramgopal on 6th June 1965 and as he was not in possession of the land as subtenant on or before the date of amendment of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called as the "Hyderabad Tenancy Act"), he could not be deemed to be a tenant under the 1st proviso to Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and, therefore, could not be called as a tenant under Section 2 (1) (j) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act. He could not be said to be in possession of that land as a tenant of the Inamdar on the relevant date and was not entitled for the grant of occupancy right of the land. He, therefore, partly allowed the appeal and declared him a tenant of land admeasuring 300'X500' from Survey Nos. 41 and 42 of village Parli under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act. He dismissed his claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of the plot of which he had obtained least from Ramgopal. It is against this order that both Nagnathappa and Srinivas filed these two petitions.