KODITHALA KESHAVULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have purchased Survey Nos. 599 600 and 603 ad-measuring Ac. 8-14 guntas situated at Lingal Ghanpur village of Jangaon Taluk Warangal District from one Rangareddy, the inamdar of the said lands. The inams in the Hyderabad State were abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Though the Act was passed by the Legislature, it was not enforced in its entirety. Only Section 1, Sec. 2 Sec. 3 (except clauses (d) (g) (h) and (i) of sub-sec. (2) and Sections 39 to 34 and section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purpose of the aforesaid sections and sections 36 and 37 were brought into force with effect from 20-7-1956. The rest of the Act remained unenforced. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1967. The said Act purported to repeal the 1955 Act. The constitutional validity of the said 1967 Act was challenged in this court and the Act was struck down. Thereafter, another Division Bench of this Court held that the striking down of 1967 Act has the effect of reviving the 1955 Act. Of course, the revival was in the same truncated fashion in which it was enforced on 20-7-1956, Thereafter, by another Notification, the entire Act was brought into force with effect from 1-11 -1973. Rules were then framed for carrying out the purpose of the Act contained in G.O.Ms, No. 870 Revenue (G) Dated 27-6-1975, Rule 5 of the said Rules reads as follows :-

(2.) The main contention raised by Sri Haridatha Ready the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that Rule 5 specifically recognises an application being made, not only by the inamdar, Kabiz-e-Kaciim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant, but also by their successors-in-interest. Where the alienation is subsequent to the date of abolition i.e., subsequent to 20-7-1956.it if. argued, the rule of inalienability does not apply. It is argued that the primary purposes of the abolition of inam so effected by Section 3 of the Act is not the resumption of the same tothe Government, but with a view to create titles in respect of inam lands in inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants and protected tenants etc., and that only in very limited situations does the land vest in the Government. His case is that once the inams are abolished, the former inamdar who, by virtue of the Act becomes an occupant, is entitled to alienate the said lands. Merely because there is delay in enforcement and implementation of the rest of the provisions of the Act, the devolution of interest and titles after 20-7-1956 cannct be held in abeyance. In any event, it is argued that in the light of the clear language contained in Rule 5, a successor-in-interest of inamdar is entitled to apply for and obtain registration as an occupant. Lastly, it is argued that the respondents could not in any event direct eviction of the petitioner from the said land and the resumption thereof by the Government on the ground of the said inalienability. In such a case the respondents could have registered the inamdar as an occupant, but in no event could they dispossess either the inaimdar or the Successor-in-interest, viz., the petitioner.

(3.) The Act was enacted by the Hyderabad legislature with .a view to abolish the inams in the former Hyderabad State. Section 3 provides for abolition of ail the inams with effect from the date of commencement of the Act and their vesting in the Government. Sections 4 to 8 which immediately follow Section 3, provide for registration of inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants as occupants of the inam lands. The dominant idea seems to be that the persons in actual possession and cultivation should be registered as occupants, subject to certain limitations and-cosditicns. Even the vesting u/s. 3 appears to be for the purpose of working out the rights of several persons referred to and in accordance with Sections 4 to 8, The inam lands can vest in the Government absolutely only in those situations which are provided by the Act itself. The executive instructions cannot supplement the provisions of the Act.