GANGAREDDY Vs. RUKMABAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Minister for Revenue, dated the 6th September, 1955.

(2.) The facts leading to the above writ petition may be briefly stated: The 1st respondent filed an application before the Deputy Collector Nizambad, under Sec. 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act praying that she might be given possession of certain lands situated in Renjarla village. She alleged in the said petition, that the lands in dispute devolved on her father when her grandfather's properties were distributed among his four sons equally, that her father died in 1350 Fasli that her mother also died subsequently and that her father executed a will in her favour bequeathing her the said properties. The petitioner who happens to be the father's brother of the 1st respondent, opposed the said application. He raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to entertain the petition under Section 98 of the Act. According to him, the lands were sold by the father of the 1st respondent to him and that he was in possession as their owner.

(3.) After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Deputy Collector eventually held that the 1st respondent was entitled to possession and made an order accordingly. Against the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Collector who confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue which considered the respective contentions of the parties and came to the conclusion that the relation between the parties was not that of tenant and landholder and that therefore the dispute was not one to which the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act could apply. In this view, the Revenue Board allowed the appeal. Against the order of the Board of Revenue, the 1st Respondent-preferred an application for revision to the Minister for Revenue who allowed the revision and directed that the orders passed by the Collector should be implemented. It is this order of the Revenue Minister, dated the 6th September 1955 that is the subject matter of challenge in the above writ petition.