ISLAMIA ARABIC COLLEGE Vs. BALARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal by the first defendant in the suit is directed against the confirming judgment of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit filed for rectification of the revenue records by incorporating the name of the first plaintiff as protected tenant of the suit land and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any interest in the suit lands or in the compensation payable for the acquisition of any portion of it and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) The case has had a long and chequered career and this is, perhaps, the fourth round in this Court. Initially the trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal, it was remanded to the trial Court. After remand, the trial court decreed the suit but again on appeal, it was remanded. Thereafter, the suit was once again, decreed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed on appeal by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal by the first defendant in the suit. The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal may be stated briefly:

(3.) The suit was originally filed by two persons, namely, Balaram Singh and Boddu Swamy as plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively claiming that the first plaintiff was the protected tenant of the plaint Schedule lands and the second plaintiff was his co-tenant, that the name of the first plaintiff was duly recorded as the protected tenant in the official Tenancy Register prepared in the year 1950 as well as in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 and the name of the father of the second plaintiff was also recorded as joint tenant, but in the revenue records prepared after 1954, their names were omitted. The second defendant in the suit, namely, Abbasi Begum who was the pattedar of the suit lands, purported to alienate the same in favour of the first defendant by means of a registered gift (wakf) deed dated 22-8-1956 suppressing the fact that the first plaintiff was the protected tenant and the name of the first defendant was got surreptitiously incorporated in the re venue records as pattedar of the plaint schedule lands. The said alienation of the suit lands by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was illegal and void as it was made without obtaining permission of the competent authority under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (for short 'the Act'). It was also claimed that the first plaintiff acquired ownership rights to the suit lands under section 38-E of the Act. It was further claimed that a portion of the suit land was acquired by the Housing Board and the defendants had no right to claim any part of the compensation that might be awarded for the acquired land. On the said allegations the suit was filed claiming the aforementioned reliefs.