VELUPULA RAJIGA Vs. AHMED BIN NAZIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed against the Order of Kumarayya, J., in W.P. No. 14 of 1956, quashing the Order of the Revenue Minister of the erstwhile Hyderabad State directing the remand of a tenancy proceeding to the Deputy Collector, Karimnagar, so that fresh evidence may be taken and report submitted, raises a point of law relating to the interpretation of sections 34, 35 and 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly narrated. The first respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Collector, Karimnagar, under section 35 of the Act for a declaration that he was a protected tenant in respect of lands covered by Survey Nos. 1336 and 1338. This was opposed by the appellants' father, Rajiga (the 2nd Respondent in the writ petition), who also set up a similar claim.

(3.) The Deputy Collector held in favour of the first respondent and granted him the certificate. This was reversed by the District Collector on appeal filed by the appellants' father. On further appeal, the Board of Revenue restored the order of the Deputy Collector. The aggrieved party, i.e., Rajiga carried the matter in revision to the Revenue Minister, notwithstanding the amendment of section 91 of the Act vesting the Revisional Jurisdiction in the High Court which was till then exercised by the Revenue Minister. As the Revenue Minister required some more evidence to decide the question, he directed the Deputy Collector to record fresh evidence and submit a report.