Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that this is a proxy litigation initiated on behalf of the tenants at the behest of MLA. It is his submission that the authorities below have committed error in holding that the Inam in respect of the subject properties is covered by Section 6 of the Act of 1954 and not by Section 5 thereof. It is his contention that this Court, in judgment dated 10.03.2004, has held that it is a 'Madad Mash Inam' which is personal inam and it is perpetual and alienable. It is his submission that the land comprised in such Inam is covered by Section 5 of the Act of 1954 which does not contemplate any occupancy price to be paid by the Inamdar to the Government. It is his submission that this provision contemplates payment of occupancy price only by permanent tenants

- 21 -

wp9715.22.odt other person should not make any difference as it is open for the authorities to even take suo moto cognizance of any non-compliance of the provisions and definitely when it was so pointed out.

8. In the beginning it is made clear that the authorities under the Act of 1954 under Section 2-A could exercise powers when called upon or even suo moto. The complaint/grievance made by MLA therefore could not be termed as proxy litigation as sought to be canvassed on behalf of Petitioners as being representative of people it would be his duty to raise grievance of people. Thus, without getting influenced by the fact as to at whose instance the proceedings are initiated by authorities, the merit of order is considered in the light of facts and provisions of the Act of 1954.