SAMBHU YELLAREDDY Vs. LAXMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.

(2.) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

(3.) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli). Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench. (2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal. ORDER Venkatesam, J. This second appeal raises the following questions:- (1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits. (2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. (3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli). Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench. (2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal. Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9(1), (1964) 1 Andh WR 171; Pichu Ayyangar v. Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, AIR 1940 Mad 756, ILR (1940) Mad 901; Secy. of State v. Allu Jagannadham, AIR 1941 Mad 530, ILR (1941) Mad 850 (FB); Ethiraja Mudali v. Muthu Reddi, AIR 1961 Mad 410, (1961) 1 Mad LJ 482, LJ 482 ORDER Venkatesam, J. This second appeal raises the following questions:- (1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits. (2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. (3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli). Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench. (2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal. JUDGMENT Venkatesam, J. (3) This second appeal comes before us on a reference made by one of us (Venkatesam, J), It is filed by the defendant, Shambhu Yella Reddy, against the decision of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A. S. No. 49 of The facts relevant for a determination of the questions raised may be gathered from the antecedent history of this case.