Even though the Hyderabad Tenancy Act may not apply to service Inam lands, tenants under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act can still claim occupancy rights under section 6(1)(a) of the Act.

Headnote:
HYDERABAD TENANCY ACT - SECTION 102-A(C) - SERVICE INAM LANDS - TENANCY RIGHTS - CIRCULAR DATED 9-8-1955 - PROTECTION OF CULTIVATORS - HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT - SECTION 2(1)(J) - DEFINITION OF TENANT - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - HYDERABAD ATIYAT INQUIRIES ACT, 1952 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE - SUMMARY: The Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950, exempts service Inam lands from its purview under section 102-A(c). However, a Circular issued by the Government on 9-8-1955 protects cultivators who have been in possession for a long duration from eviction as long as they pay rent. This Circular does not confer the status of tenant on a person, but it grants security of tenure to cultivators who have been in possession for several years. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, defines 'tenant' in section 2(1)(j) in a manner similar to the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. This means that even though the Hyderabad Tenancy Act may not apply to service Inam lands, tenants under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act can still claim occupancy rights under section 6(1)(a) of the Act. The Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952, on the other hand, is enacted for the purpose of holding inquiries regarding claims of succession or rights, titles, or interests in Atiyat grants. It does not seek to protect the rights of cultivators or tenants. Therefore, there is no bar on the creation of tenancy by Inamdars under these three enactments. In the present case, the petitioners, who are Inamdars, sought to evict the tenant, Venkoba, from service Inam lands under the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952. However, the Court held that Venkoba was a tenant and was entitled to protection from eviction under the Circular dated 9-8-1955. The Court also held that the Atiyat Deputy Collector erred in concluding that Venkoba was not a tenant. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Inamdars of a Mosque, sought to evict the tenant, Venkoba, from service Inam lands under the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952. The petitioners claimed that the lands were required for the performance of service to the Mosque and that Venkoba was not entitled to claim tenancy rights as the lands were service Inam lands. Venkoba, on the other hand, claimed that he was a tenant and was entitled to protection from eviction under a Circular issued by the Government on 9-8-1955.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Venkoba was a tenant and was entitled to protection from eviction under the Circular dated 9-8-1955. The Court also held that the Atiyat Deputy Collector erred in concluding that Venkoba was not a tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950, applies to service Inam lands. 2. Whether the Circular dated 9-8-1955 protects cultivators who have been in possession for a long duration from eviction. 3. Whether the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, defines 'tenant' in a manner similar to the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. 4. Whether tenants under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act can claim occupancy rights under section 6(1)(a) of the Act. 5. Whether the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952, seeks to protect the rights of cultivators or tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950, exempts service Inam lands from its purview under section 102-A(c). 2. The Circular dated 9-8-1955 protects cultivators who have been in possession for a long duration from eviction as long as they pay rent. 3. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, defines 'tenant' in section 2(1)(j) in a manner similar to the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. 4. Tenants under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act can claim occupancy rights under section 6(1)(a) of the Act. 5. The Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952, does not seek to protect the rights of cultivators or tenants.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT - S.H. KAPADIA, J.:---By this writ petition, petitioners seek to challenge the judgement and decision of the Collector dated 17-7-1984 in Case No. 83/Atiyat/A/I.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows :---

3. The forefathers of the petitioners were Inamdars in respect of a Mosque known as Mohammadi Masjid Kinara of Bori, Taluka Tulzapur, District Osmanabad. The land bearing Survey No. 368, admeasuring 23 acres 27 gunthas and Survey No. 369, admeasuring 25 acres and 14 gunthas along with mango and other trees situated at Naldurg, Taluka Tulzapur, was dedicated for the performance of service to the above Mosque. Accordingly, the said lands are service Inam lands. The lands were granted under Muntakhab No. 20 of 1295 Fasli (1887 A.D.). The father of the petitioners died in 1960. On his demise, the present petitioners have been recognised as Inamdars in respect of the above lands. The petitioners presented the suit under section 28(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as the "Hyderabad Tenancy Act") for recovery of an arrears of rent in respect of the above lands. In that application, the petitioners alleged that one Venkoba Chavan has failed to pay the rent for two years. That Venkoba was a tenant in respect of the above lands. That the suit was filed by the petitioners as landlords against Venkoba as the tenant. On the ground of arrears of rent, petitioners contended that they were entitled to recover possession of the lands. On 26-11-1962, the Naib Tahsildar directed the tenant to deposit Rs. 420.10 Ps. within 90 days and, in failure, the tenancy of Venkoba was liable to be terminated. No appeal was preferred by Venkoba. On 30-6-1964, petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar stating that Venkoba has failed to deposit the rent and accordingly prayed for possession. On the said application, Naib Tahsildar passed an order on 28-09-1964 and accordingly possession of the land was given to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order, Venkoba preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector which was dismissed. Thereafter, Venkoba preferred revision before MRT. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed by Naib Tahsildar was bad in law inasmuch as in order to terminate the tenancy of the tenant, the petitioners were required to terminate the tenancy for non-payment of rent giving six months notice in writing under section 19(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and since no such notice, admittedly, was given by the petitioners to Venkoba, the order of the Naib Tahsildar came to be cancelled. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Order of MRT, the petitioners preferred writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the High Court, which came to be dismissed by the High Court on 3-12-1969. Having failed to obtain possession from the tenant under the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy Act, the petitioners adopted proceedings by way of suit under the provisions of Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952 for a declaration and possession that above lands were service Inam lands. That the above lands were given for cultivation to Venkoba. That the suit lands were in possession of Venkoba due to which the petitioners were unable to perform services to the Mosque. It was urged that Venkoba's claim to tenancy over the service Inam lands was not maintainable as the lands were exempted from the operation of Hyderabad Tenancy Act under section 102-A(c) of the said Act. In the said suit, Atiyat Deputy Collector, Osmanabad came to the conclusion that the above lands were service Inam lands. That the petitioners were Inamdars. That Venkoba has failed to prove that he was a tenant in respect of the above lands. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, Venkoba preferred an appeal to the Collector who by judgment and Order dated 17-7-1984, being the impugned order, allowed the appeal inter alia by coming to the conclusion that Venkob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Bom) 325

Even though the Hyderabad Tenancy Act may not apply to service Inam lands, tenants under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act can still claim occupancy rights under section 6(1)(a) of the Act.

Login now and unlock premium legal research