THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954, ARE FINAL AND CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE STIPULATED PERIOD.

Headnote:
HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954 - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - SECTION 2-A, SECTION 10 - THE COURT HELD THAT THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954, WERE FINAL AND COULD NOT BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE STIPULATED PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COURT DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER WITHIN FOUR MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONERS, LEGAL HEIRS OF ONE DEVIDAS, FILED A WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954. THE PETITIONERS CLAIMED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS INAM LAND AND WAS NOT GOVERNED BY THE HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950. THEY ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT A TENANT ON THE LAND PRIOR TO 1950 AND, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO OCCUPANCY RIGHTS.
Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GOVERNED BY THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954, AND NOT BY THE HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT AND THAT THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS, THEREFORE, BECAME FINAL.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GOVERNED BY THE HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950, OR THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954? 2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS A TENANT ON THE LAND PRIOR TO 1950 AND, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO OCCUPANCY RIGHTS?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS AND CASH GRANTS ACT, 1954, AND THE HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1950, TO HOLD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GOVERNED BY THE FORMER ACT AND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITION PARTLY AND DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER WITHIN FOUR MONTHS.

JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---This petition is filed on 24-7-1991 by the legal heirs of one Devidas. The facts narrated in the petition are that the petitioner's father was holding Inam land survey No. 171 admeasuring 11 acres and 2 gunthas situated at Pingali, District Beed. It is stated that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came into existence and all tenants cultivating the agricultural lands on or before 1950 were held as protected tenants and were declared as statutory owners under section 38-E. According to the petitioner, there was however, no tenant on the disputed land even after the enforcement of the Tenancy Act and the Inamdar continued to be the owner and possessor of the disputed land. It may however, be stated that this possession has been seriously disputed by the respondents relying upon certain documents to show that under section 38-E of the Act, the land was regranted to the tenant respondents.

2. The petitioners however, state that the respondent No. 3 was inducted on the land as tenant as per the Pahanipatrak in the year, 1957-58. Therefore, the petitioners' father started proceedings under section 17 for determination of proper rent and under section 32(2) read with section 44 for termination of tenancy. The Notices under section 32(2) was also issued and inquiry under section 38-E came to be started by the Tenancy authorities. It is however, stated that Hyderabad Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 came into force in 1960 and all Inam lands were taken away by the Government except the lands granted for enjoyment with a condition of rendering services to religious institution. It is stated by the petitioner that the land in question also came to be taken away by the Government wrongly and it was shown that the land vested in the Government. It is stated that as per the provisions of the said Act, the land became entitled to start payment of revenue and for the purpose of revenue the tenant found on the land respondent No. 2 was given possession and occupancy rights and such notice was given to petitioner's father. The petitioners have annexed the relevant notice and mutation entry at Exh. 4 collectively. It may be stated that it is clearly borne out from these documents that occupancy rights were granted to the respondent No. 3 under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954.

3. The petitioners have, therefore, clearly stated that though the petitioners' father objected to the notice issued by the Talathi under the Act of 1954, the authority did not accept his objection and, therefore, the proceedings which he has initiated under tenancy law became infructuous. The petitioners' father's application for awarding occupancy rights to himself instead of tenancy was also not considered because petitioners father filed application for compensation of 84 trees in the land and one Chirabandi constructed well with water to Rs. 10, 500/-, built up and grown up by grand father of the petitioners' father. Thereafter again he filed another application on 1-6-1996 for compensation stating all facts honestly before the Collector, Beed but, the matter was not considered by the Collector in the case for grant of compensation. Therefore, the matter for grant of compensation remained undecided for want of inquiry under section 10 of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act.

4. In para 6 of the petition, the petitioners give the details of the material on the basis of which compensation could be assessed. It is stated that the petitioners' father expired on 27-6-78 and therefore, the claim remained to be prosecuted. Therefore, the petition is filed.

5. In response to the notice, the State Government filed affidavit in reply and it is stated that the land in question was governed under the Inam Abolition Act and occupancy rights were granted in favour of the respondent No. 3, on 1-7-1960 under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. It is also stated that nobo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document