GOODA SEETHAMMA Vs. DESHAM BALAKISHTIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions have come up before us on a Reference by our learned brother, Munikanniah, J. They raise the question whether rule 3 (1) of the Reservation of Lands for Resumption for Personal Cultivation, Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed pursuant to the Proviso of section 44 (1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Hyderabad Act XXI of 1950) (hereinafter called ' the Act.') are retrospective in their operation. In order to fully appreciate the contention raised, the relevant facts may be stated.

(2.) One Gooda Seethamma, the revision petitioner, filed petitions under section 44 (1) of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Mahboobnagar, on 27th July, 1956, with a prayer that the Court may grant the application and give her possession of the lands in question by resumption of the same. The Deputy Collector, by his orders, dated loth March, 1958, which are similar, held that the area under the personal cultivation of the defendants-protected tenants-is more than the basic holding in each of the cases, that the petitioner did not have even one family holding under her personal cultivation, and that she is entitled to resume the lands in each case.

(3.) Against that decision appeals were preferred to the Collector, Mahboobnagar.' Before him a contention was raised for the first time by the cultivating tenants that the suits were filed by the petitioner directly for resumption without filing the Reservation Statements, that as per the opinion of the Board of Revenue in its letter No. 612 PP. 4/4547 of 1957, dated 1st February, 1958, subsequently clarified by its reference No. 1364 PP. 5 of 1958, dated isth March, 1958, the applications filed straightaway for resumption, without filing the Reservation Statement should call for no consideration, and that the cases should be dismissed, and that even though such a contention was not raised before the Deputy Collector, the Collector had inherent powers to make such orders in the ends of justice. The said contention was upheld by the Collector, who by his order, dated 25th April, 1958, held that all t he applications filed after the addition of the Proviso to section 44 (i) of the Act for resumption should be preceded by a Reservation Statement, as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Rules, and that any application filed without its compliance should be rejected, in accordance with the interpretation put upon the Rules by the Board of Revenue. In this view, the Collector set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner-landholder has preferred the above Revision Petitions. For a decision of the question arising for consideration, the relevant statutory provisions and rules may usefully be noted. Section 44 (i) of the Act reads thus :