Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) Thereupon, the defendant, claiming to be a protected tenant, filed an application on 28-12-1951 before the Civil Administrator, which was later forwarded to the Tahsildar for enquiry. The lands were taken under Government control on 9-12-1951 Eventually, the Collector held by his order, dated 19-1-1952 that the lands are situate in the Hyderabad City limits and the Tenancy Act did not apply. The Board of revenue, however, on appeal, set aside the order of the collector, on 19-1-1952, and upheld the contention of the defendant that he was a protected tenant. When the matter was taken up to the Revenue minister by his order dated 15-2-1952 her set aside the decision of the Board of Revenue and ordered that under S. 23 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmi Act (No. 1 of 1354 F. ) hereinafter referred to as the Shikmi Act:" the defendant is entitled to ten years possession form 1357 F. As the defendant was kept out of possession since the filing of the petition he was held entitled to remain in possession for the rest of eight years, commencing from the date on which he was put in procession of the lands in execution of that order. The revenue Minister in conclusion, ordered that the ;obsession of S. / Nos. 126 and 132 should be restored to the defendants, Shambhu Yella Reddy, immediately, even though crops were raised by the other party.

(8) The suit was resisted by the defendant, contending that the 2nd plaintiff was not the Pattadar, and the 1st plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands on the basis of a lease from 1359 F. to 1362 F. he also contended, that as per the order of the Revenue Minister pursuant to section 23 of the Shikmi Act, he was entitled to a lease of ten years. The 1st plaintiff also filed a rejoinder supporting his case.

(9) The trial Judge framed the relevant issues. He upheld the order of the Revenue Minister, and dismissed the suit on 7-11-1953. On appeal, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad affirmed the order of the trial Court by his judgment, dated 30-11-1954. Against that , the matter was carried in second appeal No. 382/2 of 1954-55 to the High Court of Hyderabad. The Bench in that High Court by its judgment dated 7th July 1955, held that the judgment of the Revenue Minister was not in conformity with the fundamental principles of Judicial procedure as he acted on evidence recorded in the proceedings of the Criminal Court. under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure code. Further the provisions of S. 23 of the Shikmi Act were held not duly complied with, as according to that section, a lease granted after the commencement of the enforcement of that Act shall be deemed to be a lease for ten years, and therefore, a findings of the question of lease should have been recorded either by the Tahsildar or the Collector. They also held that the Revenue Minister inferred an oral lease from the deposition of Kazim Yar Jung in the Criminal Court and the that the City Civil Courts were in influenced by the judgment of the High Court in the Writ application ignoring the fact that considerations in writ Petition are different from those in a regular suit. In the result, the appeal was partly allowed, the judgment under appeal was set aside, and the case remanded for recording evidence on the question of lease, and for disposing of the suit in accordance with law.

(5) Even otherwise, the defendant acquired the rights of a protected Assami Shikmi under S. 3 of the Shikmi Act, that the said tenancy was not terminated under S. 7 of that Act, that the defendant is, therefore, entitled to seek recovery of possession, and that his rights are safeguarded under S. 103, second proviso of the Tenancy Act;
(6) that the lease in favour of the plaintiff is opposed to S. 3 of the Shikmi Act, and therefore he is not entitled to the relief of declaration and (7) that the period of lease of three years from 25-5-1950 having expired on 24-5-1953. the first plaintiff is not entitled to any right to be declared.
(17) None of the above contentions can be accepted. The first question posed by the Hyderabad High court was, whether the decision of the Revenue minister is correct, and whether the Civil Court was competent to canvass its correctness. On that point, the High court observed that the Revenue Minister applied the Shikmi Act, that there is no provision in that Act which excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and that a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court showed that this was conceded at the Bar, though no reference to the provisions of the Act was given in the judgment. The learned judges of the high Court also held that a perusal of sub-ss. (1) and (5) of S. 7 and Ss. 20 and 21 of that Act left no room for doubt about the matter, and observed that the jurisdiction of the civil courts was expressly saved by the Shikmi Act. their lordships in conclusion, held that the Civil court had Jurisdiction to consider the correctness or otherwise of the Revenue Minister's Order, as he applied the provisions of S. 23 of the Shikmi Act, under S. 103 of the Tenancy Act. To quote the words of the learned Judges : "The inference is, therefore, quite clear that this Court has jurisdiction. to consider the correctness or otherwise of the Revenue Minister's Order, as he applied the provisions of S. 23 of the Shikmi Act, under S. 103 of the Tenancy Act. To quote the words of the learned Judges: "The inference is, therefore, quite clear that this Court has jurisdiction."