MASOON ALIKHAN Vs. GANESH PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother O. Chinappa Reddy. J. given in W.P, 2343 of 1972 on 25-7-72 whereby the learned Judge made the rule nisi absolute. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

(2.) The facts have been brought out in the order of the learned single Judge. We do not therefore propose to repeat them here. The first question for consideration in the appeal was whether rule 9 of the Hyderabad Resumption of Land for Personal Cultivation Rules, 1955 permits the person in whose favour an order under section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 has been passed to give effect to it even before the time prescribed in the said Rule has expired. Rule 9 reads as under :

(3.) Now, there are certain rules framed under Section 44. They do not however, provide as to what would be the manner of delivering possession in a case under section 44 of the Act. In the absence of any rule in that behalf framed under Section 44, the problem, posed before the learned single Judge comes before us for our conlideration. It is plain that the Act being a self contained Act if it makes any provision for determining the mode and manner in which possession should be delivered in a case failing under section 44 of the Act, it is that procedure which would prevail although the Civil Procedure Code is made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The civil procedure rules being of a general character would naturally give place to any special provision made by the Act or the rules made thereunder. One has therefore to see first whether the rules made under Section 94 of the Act relate to the manner of delivery of possession ; and secondly whether there rules apply to a proceeding under Section 44 of the Act.