JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, A.C.J.:---With reference to the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954, section 2-A, (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") an interesting question arose before the Division Bench of this Court on 31-1-1989. The said Act, as the name suggests, is enacted in keeping pace with the post independence exercise of the land reforms. As a part of that drive, various State Governments in the country were undertaking the exercise of abolition of different tenures and make a simple ground reality by enabling the actual tiller to become an occupant, free from interference of so called landlords, half of whom were absentee, making the occupant tiller to till throughout his life for the benefit of that landlord. With this sort of expectation and to stop exploitation going over for centuries, the Statutes had to be enacted and one of such Statues is the said Act.

2. The balance had to be struck in the course of land reforms, that both the tiller and his erstwhile landlord should get a fair deal and therefore, procedural aspect had to be taken care of. As a part of that, in the said Act, section 2-A was enacted, which is reproduced for easy reference herein under:-

"2-A. Power of State Government or Authorised officer to decide certain questions relating to inams and appeals.

(1) If any question arises.

(i) Whether any land is an inam.

(ii) Whether any inam is held with or without conditions of service and whether or not coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue.

(iii) Whether any inam is a community service inam or watan.

(iv) Whether a commutation settlement in respect of any watan has or has not been effected.

(v) Whether any land held as inam is or is not alienable without permission of the competent authority, or

(vi) Whether any person is a Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenant of tenant, the State Government or an officer authorised by that Government shall decide the question.

(2) Where any question is decided by an officer so authorised by the State Government, any person aggrieved by such decision may file an appeal to the State Government within ninety days from the date of such decision.

(3) .....

(4) .....

3. Reading of sub-section (1) makes it clear that there are two possibilities related to a question to be decided under section 2-A of the said Act. Six questions posed under sub-section (1) may be decided by the State Government or in a given case, by the officer authorised by the Government to decide the question.

4. Sub-section (2) is in fact, matter of concern in the instant case. It deals with the appellate powers. As is well known, the appeals are the creation of Statutes and therefore, the right given under the Statutes has to be strictly construed wherever required in favour of the party in getting right of an appeal.

5. Sub-section (2) makes it very clear that the appeal is provided only in those cases, where the six questions posed by the sub-section (1) are decided by the Delegated Authority of the State Government. This would mean, if the questions are decided by the State Government in exercise of its powers, then there is no appeal. This has introduced a finality to the decision, though not stated in so many words in the Statute. Once this finality is distributed in the form of an appeal under sub-section (2), as quoted above, it makes, in our opinion, quite clear that the State Government has to hear the appeal.

6. The State Government wanted that the appeal be heard by its delegated authority. This would be so, though there is no mention in sub-section (2) of delegating powers of hearing of the appeal to anyone by the State Government. In exercise of its general powers, the Government had routinely delegated the powers to the Officer on Special Duty.

7. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court (Consisting of Kotwal, C.J. and Vaidya, J.) in (Ganeshrao Kishanrao Deshmukh v. Devising Venkatasingh and ors.)1, A.I.R. 1972 Bom. 36

Click Here to Read the rest of this document