The Governor's discretion to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President, the applicability of the Tenancy Act to lands vested in the State Government under the Inam Abolition Act, and the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner in appeal cases.

JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioners have contended that land Survey No. 157, now Block No. 371, situated at village Manjrath, Taluka Manjleaon, District Beed, was in the name of their father Anantrao Upadhya, who died in the year 1948. The said land was not a madad mash land or a service inam land, but it was a community service inam land. District Beed was the part of erstwhile Hyderabad State. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Inam Abolition Act") came into force on its publication in Official Gazette on 28th July, 1955. The Inam Abolition Act had received the assent of the President of India on 16th July, 1955. The Inam Abolition Act was adopted by the Bombay (Hyderabad Area) Adoption of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956; it was further amended by the Bombay Act No. 64 of 1959, adopted and modified further by the Maharashtra Adoption of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1960; and, now, it is having the title, "Hyderabad Abolition of Inams (and Cash Grants) Act, 1954. The petitioners have contended that there was a dispute with respect to the date of possession for grant of occupancy rights either in favour of the Inamdars or tenants or others; and ultimately, now, it is settled that the material date for declaration of occupancy rights is 1-7-1960.

2. For the declaration of occupancy rights, Inam Patrak, i.e., Appendix A, was prepared by the revenue office of the district and the occupancy rights were granted in favour of tenant or inamdar, if either of them was found in possession on the material date. It is the contention of the petitioners, however, that no inquiry was held before granting the occupancy rights. The petitioners have further contended that though the land held by them was community service inam land, the concerned revenue authorities without going into the merits and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners of being heard, declared respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as the occupants on the land under the Inam Abolition Act. The petitioners have contended that no procedure for grant of occupancy rights is laid down in the Inam Abolition Act or the rules framed thereunder. If any person is claiming to be tenant of the land, the inquiry has to be held by the competent authorities. The declaration of status as tenant is to be decided by the Tahsildar under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"). However, the Deputy Collector (Inam) was entrusted with the powers to hold inquiry into the status of tenancy of a person and this was basically against the provisions of the Tenancy Act; and, therefore, the revenue authorities without having guidelines for holding inquiry declared respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as occupants.

3. When the petitioners came to know about the declaration of occupancy rights in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6, they filed objection petition before the Tahsildar, Manjlegaon. However, only on perusing the Jamabandi file of 1955-56, the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove that there was mortgage transaction between the petitioners and Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioners failed to prove the mortgage deed and, therefore, he rejected the objection petition of the petitioners on 19-11-1964. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Government as per the provisions of section 2A(3) of the Inam Abolition Act. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation as per the order dated 15th February, 1967.0

4. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 150 of 1967 for permanent injunction against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manjlegaon. The respondents thereafter amended the prayer clause of the said suit and sought the relief of possession. The suit of the respondents was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Div

Click Here to Read the rest of this document