V SATYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. BANKAT LAL GALLADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition calling in question the propriety and correctness of the order of the Jagirdars' Debt Settlement Board, dated 30th November, 1955, on the ground that the Board while passing the said order failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. The petitioner has also requested that this petition may be treated as a writ petition, in the alternative, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order and for directing the Board to make a declaration of extinguishment of debt under section 22 of the Hyderabad Jagirdars' Debt Settlement Act (XII of 1952 hereafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) It is expedient to make a brief statement of facts giving rise to this petition. The petitioner, along with his brother and nephew had executed document on 24th October, 1951, for a sum of Rs. 21,800, in favour of the respondent Bankatlal Gallada and Company. In November, 1953, the respondent filed a civil suit in the District Court, Raichur, for a sum Rs. 27,593-9-0. The petitioner's contention was that he had liquidated the whole debt and nothing was due from him. His further contention was that even otherwise the debt claimed against him, under the provisions of section 22 (I) of the Act stands extinguished as the executant's were jagirdars and no steps in relation'to this debt were taken under section 11 or 15 of the said Act. The learned District Judge did not himself decide the legal issue raised; but instead, directed the petitioner to get the matter decided by the Jagirdar's Debt Settlement Board (which may hereafter be referred to as the Board), Accordingly the petitioner applied to the Board on 22nd August, 1955, for a declaration under section 22. The Board after hearing the parties held that since they were not seized of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act, they cannot try and decide the issue raised by such an application, Against this order, the petitioner has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) Sri Subbarayudu, on behalf of the petitioner, contends that his client is 'driven from post to pillar and from pillar to post' and is not granted, by any forum, the relief which must be available to him under the express provisions of the statute and that the said state of affairs is that the ordinary Court of Civil jurisdiction and also the Special Tribunal alike deny the relief, on the ground of want of jurisdiction. He urges that when there is a statutory relief, there should also be a proper forum and it cannot be said that neither of them has any jurisdiction to grant the relief. The contention of the counsel on the other side is that, though the Board is a proper forum the relief claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 22 (2) (b).