MADHAV RAO GAJARAM Vs. TRIMBAK BAPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two second, appeals, the only question, which arises for determination, is whether the Darkhast of appellant -decree -holder is barred by Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The facts, which give rise to these two second appeals are almost the same, the only difference in the two appeals being that they refer to different fields. In one appeal, the field involved is survey No. 56 and, in the other, the field involved is Survey No.19.

(2.) IN 1340 F., some persons executed sale -deeds in respect of these two survey numbers. The vendors are represented by respondents in these appeals and the vendee is the appellant. On Meher 4, 1340 F., Bapu, the predecessor -in -title of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and some others, filed two separate suits to get the sale -deeds cancelled. The trial Court passed preliminary decrees in both the suits. The decrees disallowed the prayer for cancellation of the sale -deeds, but, decreed that, within ten years, plaintiffs were entitled to repay the purchase money and get the lands restored to them; but that, after ten years, the sales should be final. They also provided that during the ten years, plaintiffs should pay interest on the purchase money to defendant, that is, the appellant in this Court, at the rate of 8 annas per cent per month. It appears that plaintiffs failed to pay the purchase money as provided for by these preliminary decrees, and, thereon, final decrees were passed on Khurdad 7, 1351 F. The final decrees were in the following terms: - Bapu and others, the plaintiffs, are ordered to hand over possession of land (Survey No. 56 in one case and S. No. 19 in the other) situated at Ghat Shenidura Jahagir, Taluka Kannad, to Madhavrao, the petitioner -defendant. Appellant filed Darkhast applications on 17, Khurdad 1351 F., for possession of the lands. In the meantime, revision proceedings by plaintiffs and the Collector under Section 21 of the Hyderabad Land Alienation Act, had come to be started in respect of these two lands. Therefore, execution of the Darkhasts was stayed. These proceedings, ultimately, terminated on isfandar 3, 1358 f; by orders of the then Hyderabad High Court and the final decrees, dated Khurdad 7, 1351 P., were confirmed. After the termination of these proceedings, appellant filed applications on May 2, 1951 A.D., for recovering possession of the two lands. These applications were resisted by respondents or their predecessors on five grounds. It is not necessary to reproduce all the pleas except one which was that the decrees were not executable by reason of Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Darkhast Court rejected all those contentions including the plea under Section 47 aforesaid and passed an order for possession in favour of appellant and against respondents. From this, respondents preferred appeals to the District Court. All the five pleas were repeated in that Court. That Court rejected four of those pleas but upheld the plea under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. That Court held that the civil Court was not competent to execute the decrees because the alienations in favour of appellant had become invalid by virtue of Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Accordingly, the learned District Judge dismissed the applications of the defendant -appellant. It is from these appellate orders that the present second appeals arise.

(3.) THE short question for determination is whether the decrees for possession passed in favour of defendant -appellant have become invalid or infructuous on account of Section 47(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,. 1950, which is as follows: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in. force or in any decree or order of a Court, no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction, of the Collector: Provided that the Collector may declare a permanent alienation or any other transfer of agricultural land to be valid if the permanent alienation or transfer took place before the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1954 and possession of the land transferred was given to the vendee before such commencement if application for sanction is made within one year after such commencement. The proviso to Section 47 was added by the Amending Act (No. Ill) of 1954. Section 47 provides in express terms that no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Collector. Therefore, the effect of the section is that, if a transfer of agricultural land takes place without previous sanction of the Collector, it is invalid, and this would be so notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court. Therefore, if the bar of Section 47 applies to the facts of the present case, the fact that civil Courts have passed decrees in favour of appellant will not prevent the bar from being effective. However, the alienations on the basis of which the decrees were passed and the decrees themselves were made long before the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came to be enacted. Therefore, the bar would come into operation only if Section 47 is construed to be retrospective. Therefore, the question of consideration is whether Section 47 is retrospective in operation.