Karnataka High Court
A.R. Badarinarayana vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 1989
Equivalent citations: ILR1989KAR2016, 1989(2)KARLJ610
JUDGMENT Rama Jois, J.
1. In this appeal presented under Section 31(1) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short), against the order, of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, the following question of law arises for consideration:
"Whether under Section 17(1) of the Act, an Inamdar is entitled to any compensation in respect of lands of which he is registered as an occupant and in respect of which tenants other than those falling under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are continued as tenants under Section 9A of the Act."
2. In order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the provisions of the Act, as it stood on the date on which it was enacted and of the Amendment of the Act by Act No.7/56, by which Section 9A and Chapter III-A were inserted into the Act, before the date on which the Act was brought into force w.e.f. 1-2-1959. Salient aspects of these provisions are these:-
(i) The Act was enacted by the Legislature of the former State of Mysore to provide for the abolition of the Personal Inams and certain Miscellaneous Inams in the area of the former State of Mysore. Section 2(7) of the Act, which defined the word 'inam village' and Section 2(10) which defines 'minor inam', read:
"2(7) "Inam village" means an alienated village whether Sarvamanya, Jodi or Khayamgutta or a portion of such village."
XXX XXX XXX "2(10) "Minor inam" means an alienated holding other than an inam village, situated in an alienated village or in an unalienated village."
Section 3 of the Act provided for vesting of Inams in the State and its consequences. The relevant portion of the Section reads:-
"3. Consequence of the vesting of an inam in the State:- (1) When the notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 in respect of any inam has been published in the Mysore Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances;
(c) the inamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act;
(d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such inam on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid."
According to the above provision, on the coming into force of the Act, all rights, title and interests of inamdars in the inam villages or the inam lands, as the case may be, would cease and stand vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, except to the extent the interests of the inamdar saved by or under the provisions of the Act. Further, all rents and land revenue payable in respect of the lands which were payable to the inamdar prior to the date of the coming into force of the Act, became payable to the State Government.
(ii) The Act having provided for the vesting of all inam lands in the State, also made provision for registering different category of tenants as well as inamdars at, occupants of the lands. Section 4 of the Act provided that every 'Kadim' tenant as defined under Section 4 of the Land Revenue Code, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands of which he was a 'Kadim' tenant. Section 5 of the Act provided that every permanent tenant of the Inamdar as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant. Section 6 of the Act provided that every quasi-permanent tenant of inam lands was entitled to be registered as an occupant, in respect of the lands of which he was a quasi-permanent tenant, as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, Section 7 of the Act provided that every holder of a minor inam to which the Act was applicable, was entitled to be registered as an occupant of lands other than lands specified at Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Section. Section 8 of the Act provided that that every holder of a minor Inam, to which the Act was not applicable, shall be entitled to be registered as the holder of minor inam lands, which included in his holding. In this case, we are concerned with only Inamdars other than holders of minor inams covered by Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. To such inamdars Sections 9 and 12 of the Act applied. These two Sections read:-
"9. lands and buildings to vest in the inamdar:- (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as a occupant of all lands other than -
(i) communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works;
(ii) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Section 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8; and
(iii) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar.
(2) Every building situated within the limits of the inam which was owned immediately before the date of vesting by the inamdar shall, with effect on and from such date, vest in the inamdar.
Explanation:- In this Section 'inamdar' means an inamdar other than a holder of a minor inam referred to in Section 7."
"12. Vesting of certain buildings situated in an inam:- Every private building other than the buildings which vest under Sections 7 and 9, situated within the limits of an inam shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date."
According to the above two Sections, every inamdar was entitled to be registered as an occupant of all the lands except the categories of lands specified in Section 9(1)(i), (ii) and (iii). Further every building situated within the limits of the inam which was owned by an inamdar immediately before the appointed day, vest in the inamdar from such day by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 9. In other words, the effect of Section 9 is that an inamdar was entitled to be registered of all inam lands except those in respect of which other persons were entitled to be registered as occupants and also except the lands specified in Section 9(1X0 which would remain with Government after vesting.
(iii) Section 17 of the Act provided for compensation payable to the Inamdar. That Section reads:-
"17. Amount of compensation payable:-(1) Save as otherwise provided in Section 26, the total compensation payable in respect of any inam shall be the aggregate of the sums specified below:-
(i) a sure equal to twenty times the amount of land revenue payable in respect of land held by 'Kadim' tenants and permanent tenants entitled to be registered under Section 4 and Section 5, respectively;
Explanation: Where the land revenue is paid in kind, the amount of land revenue for purposes of this clause shall be determined on the basis of the market value prevailing on the 1st day of January, 1954, of the crop or crops paid as land revenue;
(ii) a sum equal to seventy-five per centum of the amount payable by the quasi-permanent tenants of the inamdar under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 in respect of lands of which they are entitled to be registered as occupants under Sub-section (1) of the said Section 6;
(iii) a sum calculated at the rates specified below in respect of lands referred to in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 or of Section 9 -
(a) seventy-five rupees per acre within the municipal limits of the Cities of Bangalore, Mysore and Davangere and within an area of one mile from such limits;
(b) forty rupees per acre within the municipal limits of the towns of Kolar, Tumkur, Chitradurga, Shimoga, Bhadravathi, Chickmagalur, Hassan and Mandya and the limits of the Kolar Gold Fields Sanitary Board Area, and within an area of one mile from such limits; and
(c) twenty rupees per acre in all other areas;
(iv) a sum equal to twenty times the Jodi, quit-rent or other amount, if any, of like nature, derived by the inamdar concerned from persons holding minor inams under such inamdar; and
(v) a sum equal to ten times the average net annual income derived by the inamdar during a period of five years immediately preceding the date of vesting, from lands other than lands referred to in Clause (iii) and lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9."
A reading of Section 17 would indicate that it provided for payment of compensation to an erstwhile inamdar in respect of all lands in respect of which any person other than the inamdar was required to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4 to 9 of the Act or in respect of which no one was entitled to be registered as an occupant, that is, lands which after vesting would remain with the State Government, in that the lands in respect of which occupancy could not be granted in favour of any individual.
(iv) As can be seen from the provisions of the Act referred to above, provision was made for registering Kadim tenants and permanent tenants whose tenancy, according to the definition, was co-extensive with that of the inamdar as occupants of the lands of which they were tenants. Section 6 conferred similar right of occupancy to a quasi-permanent tenant, who according to the definition of quasi-permanent tenant under Section 2(14) of the Act was a person if he were a tenant of an inamdar for a period of not less than six years prior to 1st July 1948. The Act, was, however, silent in respect of tenants of inamdars who did not fall within the definition of Kadim tenant or permanent tenant or quasi-permanent tenant. This lacuna in the Act, was filled up by an amendment to the Act by Act 7 of 1956 even before the Act was brought into force. The provisions introduced by the said amendment were Sections 9A, 26A, 26B, 26C and 26D. They read:-
"9A. Other tenants of Inamdar:- Every tenant of the inamdar, other than the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6, shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of Chapter III-A, be entitled to continue as a tenant of the land in respect of which he was a tenant immediately before the date of vesting."
CHAPTER III-A "Provisions applicable to tenants continued under Section 9-A. 26-A. Application of this Chapter:- The provisions of this chapter shall apply to tenants continued under Section 9-A. 26-B. Rent:- Every tenant shall pay to the inamdar (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the landlord) the reasonable rent in respect of the land held by such tenant:
Provided that such rent shall in no case exceed the maximum rent fixed for the time being under the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952.
Explanation: In this Section "reasonable rent" means the rent determined by the prescribed authority having regard to the factors specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952."
"26-C. Continuation of tenancy on the death of a tenant:- If a tenant dies, the landlord shall continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding it at the time of his death in favour of the heir or heirs of the deceased tenant unless such heir or heirs do not agree to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which the deceased tenant was holding the land."
XXX XXX XXX "26-D. Termination of the tenancy:- The tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated unless such tenant:-
(i) has failed to pay the rent of such land for any year;
(ii) has done any act which is destructive or permanently injurious to the land;
(iii) has failed without reasonable cause to cultivate the land for a period of two consecutive years;
(iv) has without reasonable cause left the land fallow;
(v) has sublet the land or assigned his interest in the land; or
(vi) has used such land for a purpose other than agriculture;
Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to sub-letting of any land held by a tenant who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a widow or a minor or who is subject to physical or mental disability or who being not more than twenty-one years of age is a student;
Provided also that when eviction is sought under Clause (i) or (ii), the tenant shall be entitled to relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 or 24, as the case may be, of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, for the time being in force."
The clear effect of these provisions was that tenants of inamdar other than those who fell within the description of Kadim tenants, permanent tenants and quasi-permanent tenants, were to continue as tenants of the inamdar only subject to the condition that the rate of rent recoverable by any inamdar could not be the same which he was recovering prior to the date of commencement of the Act, but could be a rent at a rate not exceeding the maximum rent fixed under the provisions of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952. The tenancy so preserved was also heritable under Section 26-C of the Act and could also be terminated on any one of the grounds mentioned under Section 26-D of the Act. From these provisions, it is clear that after the date of vesting, the inamdar was regarded as the landlord of the tenants falling under Section 9-A of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Section 9-A tenant') and the inamdar was entitled to recover the rent and also terminate the tenancy and secure possession of the land on any one of the grounds mentioned under Section 26-D of the Act. With this background we shall now, proceed to set out the history of this case.
3. The Act was brought into force w.e.f. 1-2-1959 subsequent to the amendment made by Act No. 7/56 incorporating Section 9-A, and Chapter III-A into the Act. Section 10 of the Act provided for the determination of claims of persons under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for occupancy rights as also the claims of Section 9-A tenants. That Section reads:-
"Section 10. Determination of claims under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 9-A:- (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a Kadim tenant, a permanent tenant, a quasi-permanent tenant, the holder of a minor inam or an inamdar claims to be registered as occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 or the holder of a minor inam claims to he registered as holder under Section 8, or in respect of which any person claims to be continued as tenant under Section 9-A as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.
(2) A tenant found to be in possession of any land on the first day of July, 1948, shall be presumed to be a quasi-permanent tenant as defined in Clause (14) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 unless the inamdar proves that such tenant is not a quasi permanent tenant as defined in Clause (14) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2."
From the above provision it is seen that each of the category of persons in whose favour a right to secure occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile inam lands was conferred by Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, namely, the tenants as well as inamdars, were required to make applications claiming such right and the Deputy Commissioner was conferred with the power to determine the said rights. Section 10 also incorporated a provision for determining the claims of a person who claimed to be a 9-A tenant i.e., an ordinary tenant. A combined reading of Section 3 which sets out the consequences of vesting and Section 9-A and Chapter III-A of the Act would show that an erstwhile inamdar was debarred from collecting any rent from his tenants. However, in terms of Section 3(1) and 3(1)(c) of the Act itself, the said bar was subject to any express provision in the Act which saved the interests of inamdar. As the right of the inamdar to continue as landlord of Section 9-A tenants was saved and as also the right of the inamdar to collect rents from Section 9-A tenants was also preserved under Section 26-B of the Act, the inamdars were entitled to recover the rent from Section 9-A tenants, but subject to the maximum rate of rent fixed under the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952. Therefore, the bar for collection of rent created by Section 3(1) operated only against Kadim tenants, permanent tenants or quasi-permanent tenants. From these provisions, it is also clear that even if in any given case a tenant who is really a Section 9-A tenant lodged a claim under Section 10 to the effect that he was either a Kadim tenant or a permanent tenant or a quasi-permanent tenant, the inamdar could contest his claim and it was for the Deputy Commissioner to decide as to whether the tenant concerned was only a Section 9-A tenant as pleaded by inamdar. In respect of such a person who was really Section 9-A tenant, but who lodged a wrong claim for being registered as occupant on the ground that he was a Kadim tenant or permanent tenant or quasi-permanent tenant, the only way open for the inamdar to collect rent from him if in his opinion the tenant was only a Section 9-A tenant, he could institute rent recovery proceedings and keep it pending until the determination of the claim by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter proceed with the case, if the tenant concerned was held to be a Section 9-A tenant.
4. Now coming to the facts of this case, the appellants were inamdars of large extents of lands in different villages in Shimoga district. The inam was abolished and inam lands were vested in the Government w.e.f. 1-2-1959, by the issue of a Notification dated 13-1-1959 under Section 1(4) of the Act by the State Government, Out of the large extent of inam lands, 345 acres comprised in the inam villages of Kannur and Gowtampur situated in Anandapuram Hobli, Sagar taluk under cultivation of Section 9-A tenants. They, however, lodged claims under Section 10 of the Act before the Special Deputy Commissioner for being registered as occupants under Section 4 or 5 or 6 of the Act. Upon investigation, the Special Deputy Commissioner determined that none of them fell within the categories of either Kadim tenants, permanent tenants or quasi-permanent tenants, and therefore they were not entitled to be registered as occupants under Section 4 or 5 or 6 of the Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner held that they were only ordinary tenants falling under Section 9-A of the Act and the inamdars were entitled to be registered as occupants and accordingly the appellants were registered as occupants.
5. The appellants, who did not institute any rent recovery proceedings against those Section 9-A tenants, under the impression their right to collect rents from Section 9-A tenants was barred by Section 3(d) of the Act, filed a civil suit in O.S.No.50/1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, against the State Government claiming from the Government arrears of rent for a period of 3 years amounting to Rs. 98,550/- which was payable to the Inamdars by their 9-A tenants. The suit was brought on the allegation that in view of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act the tenants were required to pay rents to the State Government and therefore it was the duty of the State Government to have collected the rents from Section 9-A tenants and made over the same to the inamdars, and as the Government had failed to do so, the inamdar was entitled to recover at least 3 years rent due from their tenants, obviously restricting the claim to the rents falling within the period of limitation. The suit was dismissed. Against the said Judgment and decree, the appellants preferred an appeal in R.F.A. 62/73 DD 25-1-1980 - A.R. Venkatachala Iyengar v. State of Mysore. In the said appeal, the following question of law was referred to the opinion of the Full Bench:-
"Whether under the provisions or by virtue of the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) inams Abolition Act, 1954, there is a legal or statutory duty on the part of the State Government to collect rents payable by the tenants to be continued under Section 9A of the Act between the date of vesting and the determination of claims under Section 9-A of the Act."
The Full Bench answered the question in the negative. When the matter came up before a Division Bench for disposal in the light of the opinion of the Full Bench, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that if as held by the Full Bench it was not obligatory for the State Government to collect the rents from Section 9-A tenants and to make over the same to the appellants - the inamdars, at least the inamdars would be entitled to compensation under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act, in respect of the deprivation of their right to collect the rents from their Section 9-A tenants; and in terms of Section 17(1)(v) of the Act they were entitled to a payment of ten times the average net annual income derived by the inamdar during a period of five years immediately preceding the period of vesting. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, with reference to the aforesaid claim, observed as follow:-
"4. However, Shri V. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs would be entitled to compensation under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act which would be a sum equal to ten times the averaged net annual income derived by the inamdar during a period of five years immediately preceding the date of vesting, from lands other than lands referred to in that sub-section which did not include lands in respect of which persons were continued as tenants under Section 9-A, He also brought to our notice two orders made by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams dated 2-8-1965 in (1) No. A9 Miscellaneous Case 36/58-59 in respect of Jodi Kannur village, From these orders it appears that the question of awarding compensation in respect of lands in regard to which persons were continued as tenants under Section 9-A, has not been considered. The suit was not specifically on this basis. However, it has also been that the jurisdiction to award compensation vested with the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams and he was the authority to adjudicate upon and decide about the quantum of compensation, vide Section 20 of the Act. Section 31(3) makes the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner final and cannot be considered in these proceedings. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be considered in this appeal. It is also not possible to state whether there were any other orders other than the two orders dated 2-8-1965 referred to above in regard to the matter of compensation. This is a matter which has to be verified. It would be open to the appellants to put forth the claim if compensation on this basis has not been awarded in respect of lands in regard to which persons were continued as tenants under Section 9-A of the Act, before the competent authority and it is for the competent authority to consider the validity thereof and adjudicate upon it in accordance with law.
5. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal."
After the above order was made, a claim was made under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga district, who is the competent Authority to award compensation under the provisions of the Act. The claim made was that the annual income which was being derived by the inamdars from Section 9-A tenants was Rs. 62,490/- per annum and ten times the amount should be awarded as compensation to the appellants under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. The relevant portion of his order reads:-
"The point is whether this claim for loss of rent income under Section 9-A, would fall under the purview of the Section 17(i)(v) or not? In my opinion this claim does not come under the purview of Section 17(i)(v) for the reasons assigned below:
1. The claimants have been placing reliance on Section 17(i)(v) and interpreting Clause (v) as lands other than that would come under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to suit their convenience, as if, this provides for land coming under Section 9-A, but the actual contention of the reference to other land is, it actually refers to lands that come under the category of common lands like gomals, streams, hallas, non-agricultural lands, and waste lands and this cannot be stretched to include lands coming under Section 9-A.
2. It is seen from the records that the claimants have already received compensation, under Section 17(i)(v) amounting to Rs. 1,85,361.00 and Rs. 97,019.00 respectively for the two villages Gowthampura and Kannur.
3. The claimants have not raised any objections at the time when they were in receipt of above compensation and they did not claim any compensation for the lands coming under Section 9A of the Act.
4. Normally, apart from the loss of income under miscellaneous sources and common lands for the inamdars for which compensation is payable under Section 17(i)(v), compensation is also payable for the lands under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, in which the occupancy rights of such tenanted lands is conferred on the tenants and the liability of the tenants to pay rent to the inamdars ceased.
5. Whereas under Section 9A of the Act, the ordinary tenants of the inamdars, who do not come under the category of either Kadim tenants or permanent tenants, are continued as actual cultivators - as tenants with the attendant liability to pay rent, as admissible under the tenancy act, to the inamdars and in such cases inamdars do not lose their ownership of such lands, as they are recognised the Kathedars or owner of that land.
6. This is evident from Section 26A of the Act, which provides for payment of rent to the inamdars by the tenants continued under Section 9A of the Act. Duty is cast on the inamdars to collect such rent from the tenants and provisions of Section 3(d) will not act as bar against this, as this is a saving clause of the Act,
7. The right course open to the claimants is to claim arrears of rent due from their tenants and take such steps as is necessary lawfully.
8. Now, these lands come under the provision of Sections 44, 45 and 48 of the Land Reforms Act 1961 as amended in 1974, according to which the tenants would be confirmed with the occupancy rights and the Kathedars or owners of such tenanted lands are entitled for compensation under this Act, The claimants can prefer their claims for compensation under this Act before the Competent Authority.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the claims for compensation filed before this Court by the petitioner is untenable and invalid under the Act."
Thus, the Special Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellants. The Special Deputy Commissioner pointed out that it was open for the inamdars to collect the rents from Section 9-A tenants as Section 3(i)(d) did not constitute a bar in view of the express savings, by Section 6A read with Section 26-B of the Act. The learned Special Deputy Commissioner also pointed out that in view of the subsequent event viz., the coming into force of the Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 1-3-1974, Section 9-A tenants became entitled to be registered as occupants under the provisions of that Act and the appellants became entitled to the compensation in respect of those lands under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have presented this appeal.
6. In our opinion, the claim for compensation made by the appellants in respect of 345 acres of land, which were under cultivation of Section 9-A tenants, is wholly misconceived and the view taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner is unexceptionable. The matter, in our opinion is simple, though on account of certain misconceptions and misconstruction of the provisions of the Act, it has been made e subject matter of litigation for nearly two decades. An analysis of the provisions of the Act would show that all the lands tailing within an inam, tell into two categories, namely, (1) the lands in respect of which an inamdar is entitled to be registered as occupant, and (2) the lands in respect of which an inamdar is not entitled to be registered as occupant.
In respect of the second category of lands alone inamdars are entitled to compensation and in respect of the first category of lands inamdars are not entitled to any compensation for, they are themselves registered as occupants of the land.
7. The lands under cultivation by Section 9-A tenants fall under the first category. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to be registered as occupants and were in fact registered as occupants and their Section 9-A tenants were continued as ordinary tenants. Therefore, there is no question of the appellants getting any compensation in respect of lands of which they were registered as occupants and in our opinion the view taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner is correct and there is no substance in the challenge to his order.
8. Sri V. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the appellants, did not dispute that in respect of the entire 345 acres of lands which were in the possession of Section 9-A tenants, the appellants have been registered as occupants. He, however, maintained that the right of the appellants to collect rents from Section 9-A tenants from the date of vesting i.e., 1-2-1959 till the date of determination that the tenants in question were Section 9-A tenants, was deprived by Section 3(1)(d) of the Act and therefore in respect of deprivation of that right compensation was payable under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act.
9. The contention of the learned Counsel is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, the Act did not deprive the right of the appellants to collect rent from Section 9-A tenants. On the other hand, Section 26-B expressly made the rent recoverable. It only placed a restriction on the maximum rate of rent. Therefore, if Section 9-A tenants made claim under Section 4 or 5 or 6 of the Act for registering them as occupants and they were not paying the rents, nothing prevented the appellants from instituting proceedings for the recovery of rent, in terms of Section 26-B of the Act, from time to time before the competent Court and to request that Court to keep the proceedings pending until the determination of their claims and after the determination that they were only Section 9-A tenants to press the claim for recovery of rent. It is by their failure to do so the appellants deprived themselves of the rents. The Act did not deprive the right of the appellants to recover the rent from Section 9-A tenants. If Section 9-A and Chapter III-A had been introduced some time after the appointed date - the date of vesting - then the appellants could have said that till that time there was a bar of Section 3(1)(d) to collect rents from Section 9-A tenants. But these provisions were incorporated before the Act was brought into force. Therefore, it is clear that no right of the appellants in respect of lands under cultivation of Section 9-A tenants was deprived which is required to be compensated. Secondly, Section 17(1)(v) of the Act provides for compensation only in respect of lands falling under Section 9(1)(ii), namely, communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works, which after vesting in the State absolutely continues to be the Government land in respect of which no one is entitled to be registered as occupant, and not in respect of lands under cultivation of Section 9-A tenants in respect of which the appellants were entitled to be and were registered as occupants.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants invited our attention to paragraph-6 of the Full Bench Judgment, in which it is stated that Section 3(1)(d) directs the tenants not to pay rents to the inamdar and it states that all rents and land revenue accruing on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the Inamdar. In paragraph-6, the Full Bench was only summarising the contents of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. The question as to whether the Inamdar was not entitled to collect rent from Section 9-A tenants until the confirmation of occupancy rights in favour of the inamdar and the determination that the concerned tenant was a Section 9-A tenant, was not before the Full Bench for consideration. Further, there is an express statement in the Judgment of the Full Bench at paragraph-7 as follows:-
"Inamdar's (since called occupant) right to collect reasonable rents from the tenants entitled to continue under Section 9-A is a fresh right conferred by Section 26-B of the Act and not a continuation of his age old right in the Inam."
From the above, it is clear that the inamdar could have exercised his new right under Section 26-B of the Act and could have recovered rents from Section 9-A tenants in terms of Section 26-B of the Act.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the last part of paragraph-9 and paragraph-10 of the judgment of the Full Bench which read:-
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Act does not expressly or impliedly cast a duty on the Government to recover rent from such tenants and pass on the same to the appellants. The appellants could exercise only those rights in respect of their Inams which have been expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act, and the right to recover rents from their tenants after the date of vesting before they are registered as occupants is not one of those rights preserved by the Act.
10. In the result, we answer the question in the negative."
He submitted that in paragraph-9 the Full Bench had held that the right to recover rents from tenants was not preserved. In fact, the only issue before the Full Bench was, whether Government was under a duty to collect rents from Section 9-A tenants till the date of determination of their claims and hand over the amount to the appellants and it was held that there was no such duty. In paragraph-9, the Full Bench has no doubt said that until the date of determination of occupancy rights inamdar could not recover rents from tenants and they could exercise only the rights saved under the Act and that the right to recover rent from the tenants till the determination of occupancy rights was not preserved. This observation has to be understood in the context of the claim made and the point urged by the appellants therein. When so understood it becomes clear that it was only with reference to the rent, which inamdar was recovering prior to the date of vesting and not to the new right created under Section 26-B of the Act. Whatever that may be, the question for consideration in this case, is whether Section 17(1)(v) of the Act provides for compensation in respect of Section 9-A lands. As stated above, on an analysis of the provisions of the Act, the inamdar is entitled to compensation in respect of lands other than those in respect of which he is entitled to be registered as an occupant. The different clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 would indicate that it provides for compensation, (1) In respect of lands registered in favour of Kadim tenants and permanent tenants [vide Clause (i)];
(2) In respect of lands registered in favour of quasi-permanent tenants [vide Clause (ii)3;
(3) In respect of lands upon which buildings had been constructed by any person other than the inamdar and therefore which vested in the owner of the building under Sub-clause (iii) of Section 7 or Sub-clause (iii) of Section 9 [vide Clause (iii);
(4) In respect of lands registered in favour of persons holding minor inam under the inamdar [vide Clause (iv)] and lastly (5) In respect of lands other than those in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 (vide Clause (v).
We are in this case concerned with Clause (v) of Section 17(1) of the Act. Under this clause, an inamdar is entitled to compensation at the rate provided in the said sub-clause in respect of lands other than the lands on which buildings are situated, which by virtue of Section 12 of the Act vests in the person who was the owner of the building and lands other than the lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act. From the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the only lands in respect of which no ether person is entitled to be registered as an occupant are those mentioned in Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, namely, communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the compensation payable under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act relates only to those categories of lands which stand vested absolutely in the State Government and in respect of which no provision is made under the Act for conferment of occupancy rights of those lands on any one. The lands falling under Section 9-A of the Act are lands in respect of which an inamdar is entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 9(1) of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the appellants for compensation in respect of Section 9-A lands does not fall under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act.
12. In the result, we answer the question set out first as follows:-
"Under Section 17(1)(v) of the Act an Inamdar is not entitled to any compensation in respect of lands of which he is registered as an occupant and in respect of which tenants other than those falling under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are continued as tenants under Section 9-A of the Act,"
13. Accordingly, we make the following order:
(i) The Appeal is dismissed;
(ii) No costs.