The provisions of Sections 47 to 50 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which were omitted by the amending Act of 1969, were substantive in nature and not merely procedural, and therefore, the amendment was prospective and not retrospective.

( 1 ) THIS revision by the petitioner, under Art. 227 of the Constitation of India, gives rise to a short question of law. whether the provisions of Section 2 of the Andbra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter called "the amending Act") are retrospective OF prospective.

( 2 ) THE applications filed on June 21, 1961 under Section 47 of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950 (bereinafter called "the Act), pursuant to an agreement of sale entered into between the 1st respondent-vendor and the petitioner-Vendee on May, 4, 1961 in respect of 252 and 384 acres of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 20 and 28 respectively of Miyapur village in Hyderabad west Taluk lor a sum of Rs. 62,000/-seeking permission to alienate the lands have been rejected by the Tahsildar on October, 20, 1961 An extent of Ac. 204-48 cents was declared by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West in Case No. N/6961/62 to be in excess of the ceiling limit on November, 1 4, 1962. As the vendor refused to execute the sale deed, O. S. No. 35/62 was filed by the petitioner before the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of the agreement of sate, or, in the alternative, for damages. The decree for specific performance was granted by the Civil Court on Febuary, 28, 1963 On appeal in C. C. C. A. No. 17/64, the High Court allowed the appeal on 12-7-1968 and passed the following decree in modification and supersession of the decree of the lower court. (1) That the Tahsrldar, Hyderabad West be and here by is directed to dispose of the applications made by the defendant (Ex. B. 1 dc. 21-6-1961) and by the plaintiff (Ex. B. 4 dt. 26-6-61) io accordance with law and in the light of the provisions of the Hvderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 and the Andbra Pradesh ( Telangana area) ceiling on Land holdings Act as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity to botb the parties to furnish all the information which they may desire. (2) that the Tahsildar shall communicate a copy of the said order to both the parties as well as the first Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ; (3) That, within one month of the receipt of the said order from the Tahsildar if the Tahsildar accords sanction in respect of any portion of the suit land, the plaintiff shall deposit into court the balance of the sale price for the entire land after giving notice to the defendant. (4) That the defendant shall, within ten days of the receipt ot the notice referred to in clause 3 supra, execute a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms, including expenses, as stipulated in Ex. A. 1 (5) Tbat if the defendant commits default, the trial court shall execute and register the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff; (6) That, if sanction is not granted at all even in respect of any portion of the ceiling area, there shall be a decree against the defendant for Rs. 12000,,-which has been paid to her by the plaintiff towards the sale price with interest at six per cent per annum from 16-6-61 till the date of payment;

( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, an extent of AC. 384-15 ceuts comprised in survey No, 28 of Mianpur village is sought to be acquired by the land Acquisition Officer and a notification under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act was made on March, 17, 1967. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the Tahsildar in Case No. A4/5834/68, after affording opportunity to both parties, refused to grant the requisite sanction under section 47 of the act by bis order dt. October, 28, 1968, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Joint Collector, Hyderabad in november, 1968. As the Tahsildar refused to grant permission under Section 47 of the Act, the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 17400/- (i. e. Rs. 12000 plus interest) on December, 17, 1968 in the city Civil Court and f