S J SANGAIAH Vs. A POCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the Order of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad district in Decision No. 6-6/601/63. The facts necessary for the determination of the question in controversy are: The landholder submitted an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, for the reservation and resumption of five survey numbers situated in Kothareddipalli village and measuring Acs. 40-37 guntas (one acre is equal to forty guntas) and for permission to resume them, on the ground that the landholders have no other land in their possession and that the tenant owned some lands. The tenants contended inter alia that they owned only two survey numbers of an extent of Acs. 12-15 guntas which are under the in personal cultivation and that even so they are entitled to the benefits under section 44 (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') The Revenue Divisional Officer posed the question " How much land the petitioners are entitled to get it reserved and resumed for personal cultivation ?. He found that the family holding for this -village is seven acres of wet land or forty-eight acres of dryland and took the view that the first proviso to section 44 (2) of the Act applied to the case. Accordingly he found that as the protected tenant had less than the basic holding the petitioners' right to terminate the tenancy should be limited to half the area of the land leased' out to them. In that view he ordered resumption of half of the total area of the land leased, i.e. Acs. 20-28 guntas leaving the remaining half to be retained by the tenants. On appeal the Joint Collector, Hyderabad district, agreed with the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer and confirmed it. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been preferred by the landholders.

(2.) Sri S. V. Kondapi, the learned Counsel for the landholders, argues that the correct provision of law applicable to the case is section 44 (2) but not the first proviso to section 44 (2) as held by the tribunals below. His contention is that it is only in cases which fall outside section 44 (2) of the Act that the first proviso comes into operation but not otherwise and that the instant case is governed by section 44 (2).

(3.) For a proper determination of the above contention it is necessary to have regard to the language of section 44 which is in the following terms :