PEDDA EDLA RAMAKISHTIAH Vs. MANNE POCHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that requires to be determined in this appeal is whether the direction by the Lower Court to the decree-holder to approach the Collector for permission under section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the dismissal of the execution petition on his failure to do so, is in accordance with law. The appellant herein obtained a decree against the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,400. He filed an execution petition and got the lands of the Judgment-debtor (respondent herein) attached. On the objection by the Judgment-debtor, the trial Court directed the decree-holder to obtain sanction of the Collector for the sale of the attached properties as contemplated under section 47 of the Act. The decree-holder, therefore, filed a petition before the Collector for permission, but it was refused on 22nd June, 1959. The Collector observed that as the decree-holder has no title to the suit lands nor is in possession, he cannot apply for alienation or transfer of the lands. He, therefore, dismissed the petitions. The decree-holder apprised the Court of the refusal. The lower Court by its order dated 27th July, 1959 held that as the decree-holder was not able to obtain the required sanction and produce the same, the E. P. is liable to be closed. In that view, he dismissed the execution petition. The matter was carried in appeal to the District Judge, Nizamabad. . The learned District Judge also upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on the ground that no sanction was obtained.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant is that under section 47 of the Act no permanent alienation or transfer of agricultural lands is valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Tahsildar. But, there is no procedure contemplated for making an appPcat'on by the decree-holder. Under the rules framed regaring the transfer of agricultural lands under section 47 of the Act, under the Notification 62, dated 11th August, 1951, the application has to be made for the transfer of the agricultural lands either by the alienor or the transferor, or testator, or by the alienee or the transferee, in Form No.1 appended to the Rules. The Rules do not provide for procedure in cases where the property of the judgment-debtor, who is an agriculturist, is sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. As is evident from the order of the Collector in the instant case the application of the decree-holder has been rejected on the ground that he is neither the owner nor the purchaser of the land. The difficulty is obvious. He could not be the purchaser of the land unless the permission for the transfer as laid down under section 47 of the Act was obtained, and for permission under section 47 he should either be the owner or the purchaser. Having regard to the absence of any specific provision in this regard, the matter may be placed before a bench for authoritative pronouncement, as cases of this nature are likely to come up very often. The papers may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for being posted before a Bench. It is urged by Shri K. A. Mukthadar that the Judgment in Ollala Ambiah v. Mallanna, requires reconsideration in so far as it affects attachments of properties in execution of decree obtained against agriculturists governed by the provision of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculturists Act (XXI of 1950).

(3.) There seems to be some force in this submission. We, therefore, think it desirable that the matter should be authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of this Court. This case will, therefore, be posted before Full Bench after one month. Mr.P.Ramachandra Reddy is requested to help us as amicus curiae in this case.