MANGILAL NARSINGDAS Vs. SURYABHAN RAGHO SAWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Suryabhan had taken lease of survey No. 136, area 30 acres 1 guntha, for the year 1951 -52 from the petitioner Mangilal. Similarly, respondent No. 1 Suryabhan had also taken lease of survey No. 7, area 32 acres 23 gunthas, and survey No. 10, area 31 acres 39 gunthas, from one Ghanashyamdas BalKisan. Survey No. 136 is situated at village Janephal while the other two survey numbers are situated in village Ghat Nandra. Suryabhan thus held 93 acres 62 gunthas of land under lease in the year 1951 -52. After the expiry of the lease i.e. by March 31, 1952, the landholder Mangilal, the petitioner, entered into possession of his field survey No. 136. Thereafter on July 8, 1952, the lessee Suryabhan, respondent No. 1, applied to the Sub -Divisional Officer under Section 19(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (XXIV of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, for being placed in possession of survey No. 136 on the ground that he had been dispossessed of his land by the landholder which was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be a protected lessee and contended that the landholder could not so take possession on the expiry of the period of lease. This application was enquired into by the Sub -Divisional Officer, respondent No. 4, and was rejected by him by his order dated December 17, 1952, on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not a protected lessee and as such he was not entitled to the relief under Section 19(2) of the Act. The Sub -Divisional Officer held that respondent No. 1 had not acquired the status of a protected lessee as he had held more than 50 acres of land under the lease during the year 1951 -52 and as he had failed to give intimation in writing to the landholders as required by Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, and the latter by his order dated March 9, 1953, remanded the case back to the Sub -Divisional Officer holding that it was not for the respondent lessee to give intimation about the selection of the land which he preferred to hold as a protected lessee and that the matter should have been enquired into and selection should have been made by the revenue officer concerned. The petitioner -landholder appealed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated December 17, 1953, held that respondent No. 1 had not acquired the status of a protected lessee because of non -compliance with Section 4 of the Act, and confirmed the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated December 17, 1952. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Sub -Divisional Officer held an enquiry as per order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner and selected survey No. 136 belonging to the petitioner as the land of which respondent No. 1 was declared to have obtained the status of a protected lessee. The Sub -Divisional Officer also placed respondent No. 1 in possession of survey No. 136 on April 19, 1953, In fact, as held by the order passed by the Board of Revenue confirming the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated December 17, 1952, the application of respondent No. 1 under Section 19(2) of the Act was rejected and the petitioner was held, in effect, as entitled to retain possession of survey No. 136 inasmuch as respondent No. 1 had not obtained the status of a protected lessee in respect of survey No. 136.

(2.) AFTER the order of the Board of Revenue, dated December 17, 1953, the lessee again made an application to the Sub -Divisional Officer on December 19, 1953, intimating that he was selecting survey No. 136 as the land of which he should be declared a protected lessee. Respondent No. 1 also served a copy of this intimation to the petitioner who replied that respondent No. 1 had no right of selection at that stage and that he could not be declared as a protected lessee of survey No. 136.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that Suryabhan, the lessee, had not obtained the status of a protected lessee any time under the Act. According to the petitioner, whenever a lessee is holding more than 50 acres of land under lease, he cannot be declared a protected lessee unless he selects so much of the land as would make the total area to be held by him as a protected lessee equal to 50 acres and gives an intimation in writing to the landholder or landholders as the case may be and to the revenue officer, and it is only on such intimation being given that the lessee can be declared a protected lessee. It is further contended that such intimation has to be given not less than two months before the commencement of the agricultural year next following i.e. in the instant case such intimation should have been given two months before April 1, 1952. Admittedly in this case no such intimation was ever given by respondent No. 1, and in the absence of compliance with Section 4 of the Act, respondent No. 1 could not become a protected lessee. The Sub -Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner had granted the prayer of respondent No. 1 holding that such intimation could be given any time, and the fact that he had not given intimation two months before the expiry of the period of lease did not come in his way. The total area of the land held by respondent No. 1 undoubtedly was 93 acres 63 gunthas out of which 30 acres 1 guntha belonged to the petitioner and the rest was held by Ghanashyamdas Balkisan of Ghat Nandra. The Board of Revenue, however, while confirming the orders of the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, took help of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases (Amendment) Act, 1953 (XXII of 1953), hereinafter called the Amending Act, It will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the main Act and the Amending Act. Sub -section (3) of Section 4 of the Act No. XXIV of 1951 provides: Such intimation shall contain a full description of the land selected by the lessee and shall be given not less than two months before the commencement of the agricultural year next following. The Amending Act No. XXII of 1953 came into force on December 28, 1953, when it was published in the Gazette. It was assented to on December 23, 1953, by the President. Section 4 -A introduced by the Amending Act provides: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4, every person who, in consequence of his failure to give intimation regarding the land selected by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, has failed to acquire rights of a protected lessee in such land shall, if he is in possession of such land on the 1st day of August 1953 and gives intimation as required by Section 4 before the 1st day of February 1954, be deemed to be a protected lessee of the land described in the intimation with effect from the date on which but for such failure he would have acquired the rights of a protected lessee, any decree or order of the Civil Court to the contrary notwithstanding. (Italics are ours).