BABU RAO Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari and direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner' Baburao is the landlord of Survey No. 52 at Patoda, taluqa Kinwat. The opposite party No. 2 is the son of one Laxman, who was a protected tenant within the meaning of Section 34, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No. 21 of 1950. Laxman is now dead and Maruthi, alleging that he is the heir to his father and entitled to possession of the protected land, has applied for restoration thereof in view of that fact that Baburao has taken it into his possession illegally.

(2.) THE application was filed in the Court of the Tahsildar and was decided under Section 32 of the aforesaid enactment. Sub -sections (1) & (2) thereof provide that a tenant entitled to possession of any land under the provisions of the Act may apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for delivery of possession & that no land -holder shall obtain possession of such land except under an order of the Tahsildar. Sub -section (4) then lays down ... that any person taking possession of any land or dwelling -house in contravention of Sub -section (1) or (2) shall, without prejudice to his liability to the penalty provided in Section 96, be liable to forfeit his crops, if any, grown on the land and to the payment of such costs as may be awarded by the Tahsildar or by the Taluqdar on appeal. Acting under the before said provisions, the Tahsildar of Kinwat passed an order that Maruthi, opposite party No. 2, is entitled to possession of the land as well as of the crops standing thereon. The applicant desires that this order of the Tahsildar should be quashed in view of the fact that it is erroneous and against equity, good conscience and natural justice.

(3.) IT is clear in the present case that the applicant has an adequate remedy open to him and he can, by recourse to his right of appeal, obtain a complete and speedy recession of the Tahsildar's orders. There appears to be no valid reason why he should be allowed to by -pass the regular procedure provided by the aforementioned Act and to come up to this Court and pray for exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.