JAMEDAR ABDUL SATTAR Vs. CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by one Jamadar Abdul Sattar, purporting to be under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1950. While the grounds urged would indicate that it is a revision petition, the petitioner has added a ground being ground No. 5 that if for any reason the petition could not be treated as a revision under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act, it might be heard as an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It would appear that the petition was admitted as a revision petition by the then Chief Justice.

(2.) The property in respect of which the dispute has arisen belonged to one Zaiuddin Akmal who migrated to Pakistan in 1948. In 1950 notice was issued under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950, declaring that the Custodian was prima facie satisfied that the property was evacuee property and calling upon persons interested to put in their objections, if any. The petitioner Abdul Sattar appeared before the Deputy Custodian at the hearing, took time to lead evidence but as he failed 1o produce evidence, the Deputy Custodian declared the person to be an evacuee and the property as evacuee property, on 23rd January, 1951. The petitioner appealed to the Custodian contending that he was a lessee under the original owner since declared evacuee, having taken a lease from him in 1942 (1352-F) for five years, that he continued to be in possession after the expiry of the lease period, that he had acquired the rights of a protected tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1950, and therefore had the right to continue in possession of land. The Custodian dismissed the appeal and this order was confirmed in revision by the Custodian-General. This was on 2nd November, 1952.

(3.) It may be mentioned that when the matter was pending in revision before the Custodian-General, after it had been disposed of by the Custodian, the petitioner appears to have obtained a certificate of protected tenancy in January, 1952. After the Custodian-General had dismissed the revision, and the matter had been finally disposed of, the Custodian took steps to evict the petitioner and issued a warrant of eviction. The matter came before the Tahsildar who was doubtful as to whether the warrant issued could be executed, when the person to be evicted held the certificate of a protected tenant. He, therefore, applied to the Collector for clarification and for instructions. The Collector appears to have approached the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that the Revenue Authorities were only acting in the capacity of an executing Court and as such they could question the validity of the order and had only to execute the order. This order was communicated to the Collector who in turn informed the Tahsildar and called upon him to carry out the order.