Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Having regard to the precedential conflict on the question as to the availability of a revisional remedy to this Court under Section 28 of the Act, I consider it appropriate to consider the present revision as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while leaving the resolution of the conflict [in the decisions in G.V. Narasimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (supra)], for an appropriate occasion, by a Division Bench of this Court.

12. The Act was by the erstwhile Hyderabad Legislature and was enacted with the object of abolishing the imams in the former State of Hyderabad. Section 3 enacts the abolition of all the imams with effect from the date of the commencement of the Act and their vesting in the Government. Sections 4 to 8 provide for registration of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants as occupants of the inam lands. The legislative intent, as deducible from the scheme of the Act and its provisions, appears to be that persons in actual possession and cultivation of the abolished imams should be registered as occupants subject to specified limitations and conditions. The vesting provision under Section 3 is for the purpose of working out the rights of the several persons as spelt out in the provisions of the Act. Absolute vesting in the State is limited to situations and circumstances provided in the Act itself. The Act was not in force in its entirety in 1955. Only the provisions of Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 (Excluding clauses (d)(g)(h) and (i) of Sub-section (2) and Sections 30 to 34, 36 and 37 were brought into force with effect from 20-7-1956. After the formation of new State of A.P., the A.P. (T.A.) Inams Abolition Act, 1967 was enacted to repeal the 1955 Act. This Act was struck down. Thereafter a Bench of this Court held that on the striking down of the 1967 Act, the Act revived. After these developments, a notification was issued brining the entire Act into force with effect from 1-11-1973 and in G.O. Ms. No. 870 Revenue (G) dated 27-6-1975 Rules were issued for effectuating the purposes of the Act - the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules 1975. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the expression "Inamdar" to include a 'successor-in-interest' of an inamdar. This expression and in the context of the Act having been enforced at different points in time, came to be considered by Jeevan Reddy, J., (as his Lordship then was) in Kodithala Keshavulu v. Government of A.P. 1978 (2) An.WR 31. This decision held that in the interregnum between the enforcement of certain provisions with effect from 20-7-1956 and others with effect from 1-11-1973, the rights of the landlords and tenants remained intact as no proceedings could be taken under Sections 4 to 8 for registering the inamdars or other persons mentioned in those provisions, as occupants. Therefore, Kodithala case (supra) held, the right of the inamdar under the Act must not be interpreted as having been taken away. The Court held that the expression "successor-in-interest" would include a person upon whom an interest devolves even if the devolution be by an inamdar after 20-7-1956. As a corollary of this decision, which holds the field as on date, a person who succeeds to the interest of an inamdar even after 20-7-1956 including by alienation or transfer from such inamdar, if in occupation and possession of erstwhile inam lands as on 1-11-1973, would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and subject to its conditions.