Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the ratio in all these case are clearly distinguishable and render little assistance to the Gram Panchayat. The scope, ambit and operation of the Inams Act was considered by P. Jaganmohan Reddy,J. (as he than was) in D.V. Raju v. B.G. Rao & Anr. [1961] 2 A.W.R. 368 and held that the paramount object of the legislature was to protect the tenant in occupation and is sought to be achieved by making effective orders of eviction made by the Civil Court either in execution or otherwise. It further prohibits the institution of any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court under s. 14 to set aside or modify any decision of the Tehsildar, Collector or Revenue Court except where such decision has been obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion. Section 15 enjoins that the provisions of the Act and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of absolute jurisdiction on the Tehsilder, Revenue Court or the Collector, as the case may be, notwithstanding any provision of law or any suit or decree of a Civil Court or for that matter even where evictions have taken place in pursuance of such decrees, the evicted tenants can be restored to occupation provided the requirements for the protection of the possession of the tenants are satisfied. In that case the occupant in possession laid proceeding before the Tehsildar for injunction restraining the writ petitioner from ejecting him from the lands. The Tehsildar in exercise of the power under Rule 16 of the Rules granted injuction pending consideration of his right to Ryotwari patta. The order of injunction was challenged firstly on the ground of ultra vires of Rule 16 and secondly on the ground of jurisdiction. While upholding the order on both the grounds the learned Judge held that Tehsildar, Revenue Court and the Collector have exclusive jurisdiction and the civil suit is barred. We respectfully approve it as correct law. The Inams Act did not intend to leave the decisions of the revenue courts under s. 3 read with s. 7 to retry the issue once over in the Civil Court. Undoubtedly the decision of the division Bench in P. Pedagovindayy v. Subba Rao, [1969] 2 A.L.T. 336 is in favour of the contention that the civil suit is maintainable. It is not good law.