JANAMPALLY NARAYANA REDDY (DECEASED) Vs. CHOWLAKAYALA HANUMANTHACHARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, to revise the Order of the Collector, Mahboobnagar, by which he affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar of Gadwal and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) It is worthy of note that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is analogous to that under section 115, of the Civil Procedure Code but with this vital difference, namely, that whereas under section 115, Civil Procedure Code the exercise of the powers of the High Court is discretionary, under section 91 of the Act the aggrieved party has a right of revision on any of the grounds specified in that section. This material difference is readily brought out if the two sections are read in juxtaposition. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_34_LAWS(APH)7_1959_1.html</FRM> It will be observed that while Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, uses the words "The High Court may call for the record of any case," etc. and again "the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit", section 91 of the Act uses the words "an application for revision shall lie to the High Court," etc.

(3.) Now the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a minor under the guardianship of his mother. He is the tenant cultivating the lands bearing Survey Nos. 99 and 103 (dry) for which the revenue assessment is Rs. 17-8-0 per year, situated in Sangal Village, Gadwal Taluk, Mahboobnagar District. The respondent is the landholder of these lands. The deceased father of the petitioner had executed a 'kabulietnama' in respect of these lands in the year 1356-F. i.e., four years before the Act came into force, by which he had agreed to pay rent to the landholder at the rate of Rs. 480 per year.