http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MAROTI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEVRAO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/11/1998

BENCH: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik.

JUDGMENT:

D E R         By an earlier judgment & order of this  Court  dated llth  March 1969 in Civil Appeal No .306 of 1966 between the the original appellant and the original respondents  in  the same proceedings.  this Court gave the following directions:

                       "The  order  passed  by  the High         Court is set  aside,  and  the  proceeding         stands, remanded to the Tahsildar with the         direction  that  he do determine determine         whether  Dadarao  continued  to  remain  a         protected  tenant  till tile date on which         he  claimed  to  exercise  his  right   to         purchase  the  land  and  whether Nivrutti         acquired the rights or a protected  tenant         and  if  so,  whether  he  was entitled to         exercise the right to purchase  the  land,         and  if  both  Dadarao  and  Nivrutti were         entitled to purchase the land or any  part         thereof  the  extent to which each of them         was entitled and  to  what  extent.    The         Tribunal will decide the question with the         least  practical  delay and dispose of the         right  and  obligations  of  the   parties         according to law.  No order as to costs."

       These  directions  were  given  because  there was a dispute between the  original  appellant  Nivrutti  and  the original respondent Dadarao in respect of the right to claim protected tenancy under the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands  Act,  1950 and the benefit under Section 38 flowing therefrom.

       The  dispute  related  to 10 acres and 34 gunthas of land in Survey No.  73.  Sutardara in village Pathan  Mandwa Taluka Mominabad,  District  Bihar.  The original respondent claimed to be a protected tenant  in  respect  of  the  said land.   He  relied  upon  Revenue entries in his favour as a protected tenant since 1950-51.  He had made an  application for  correction  of  revenue  entries  of  subsequent  year. Ultimately, the entries were corrected and a certificate  as a  protected  tenant  under  Section  34 of the said Act was granted by the Deputy Collector or, 19.12.56.

       The  original  appellant claimed to be in possession of the said land on 12.3.66 when Section 37A was  introduced in the  said  Act.    He  has  obtained  a  certificate as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

protected tenant under Section 37A in respect of 6 acres and 16 gunthas of land on 7th of September, 1957.  According  to the appellant, the rights of the respondent are extinguished by virtue of the proviso to Section 37A of the said Act.

       After remand it has been found  that  the  appellant Nivrutti  was in possession of the said land on 12.3.56 as a tenant.  The respondent Dadarao is a protected tenant  under Section 34.  We have to examine whether under the proviso to Section  37A  (1)  as  it  then  stood,  the  rights  of the respondent as a protected  tenant  have  been  extinguished. Section 37A, at the relevant time, was as fellows:

                       37-A (1) Notwithstanding anything         contained in this Act, every person who at         the  commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy         and Agricultural  Lands  (Amendment)  Act,         1955  holds  as tenant any land in respect         of  which  he  is  not  deemed  to  be   a         protected  tenant under this Act, shall be         deemed to be a  protected  tenant  if  the         total  area  of  the  land  owned  by  the         land-holder including the land  under  the         cultivation  of  his  tenants is more than         three times the area of a  family  holding         for the local area concerned;

                       Provided  that  nothing  in  this         section  shall  affect  the  rights of any         other person who already holds a protected         tenancy certificate  in  respect  of  such         land  or  whose rights as protected tenant         are under investigation before a competent         authority, if such other person applies to         the Tribunal for safeguarding  his  rights         within  a  period  of  six months from the         commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy  and         Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act.  1955"

       This  section  was  introduced  by  reason  of   the Hyderabad  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Land (Amendment) Act. 1955 which came into force on  12.3.56.    Under  the  newly added  Section  37A a person holding any land as a tenant on 12.3.56 though not deemed to be a protected tenant prior  to the  said  Amendment  Act,  shall on and from 12th of March, 1956 be deemed to be a protected tenant of the  land.    The proviso  to  Section  37A(1),  however,  makes it clear that Section 37A(1) shall not affect the rights of any person who already holds a certificate as a protected tenant in respect of the said land or whose rights as a protected tenant under the unamended Act are under investigation before a competent authority.  Thus the existing right as  a  protected  tenant and  the existing right to be declared a protected tenant is preserved if such a  person  applies  to  the  Tribunal  for safeguarding his rights within six months of 12.3.56.

       The  High  Court has come to the conclusion that the right of the respondent whose claim as  a  protected  tenant was under investigation when Section 37A came into force, is not extinguished by virtue of the proviso to Section 37A(1). The respondents’  claim  as  a protected tenant was.  during the  relevant  period  from  12.3.56  and  for  six   months thereafter,  being  investigated before the same Tribunal to which an application for safeguarding his rights by  such  a person  is contemplated under the proviso to Section 37A(1).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

His application was.  in effect an application to  safeguard his rights.

       ’Tribunal’ is defined under Section 2(W) of the said Act  as  "Agricultural  Lands  Tribunal"  constituted  under sub-section (1) of Section 87 for the area concerned.  Where no such Tribunal has been constituted under Section 2(W)(ii) by the Deputy Collector or other  officer  authorised  under sub-section (4)  of  Section 87 will be the "Tribunal".  The proviso to Section 37A contemplates an  application  to  the "Tribunal" so  defined.  In the present case since the claim of the  respondent  to  be  a  protected  tenant  was  being investigated  by  the  Deputy  Collector,  who  was also the Tribunal for the purposes of the proviso Section 37A.    the High  Court  has  held  that  a separate application was not necessary  and  the  pursuit  by  the  reappointing  of  the proceedings    claiming    protected   tenancy,   in   these circumstances, can be considered as also an  application  to the  Tribunal  for safeguarding his rights under the Proviso to Section 37A.  This  is  entirely  because  the  authority before   whom  the  application  was  pending  is  the  same authority as the Tribunal  under  the  proviso.    The  same Tribunal  has  ultimately  granted  to  the  respondent  the certificate of protected tenant on  19.12.56.    The  rights which  are  granted under this certificate cannot be held as extinguished in these circumstances.

       It was submitted by the appellant that the  Tribunal under  the  proviso  to Section 37A(1) was the Tahsildar and not the Deputy Collector.  Therefore,  the  respondent  does not  fulfil  the requirements of the proviso to Section 37A. The High  Court,  however,  in  its  impugned  judgment  has pointed  out that the authority to whom an application is to be made under the proviso to Section 37A was  designated  to be the  Tahsildar  only by Notification of 11.10.56.  At the material time, in the absence of any Notification.   Section 2(W)(ii)  would  be  applicable, as rightly held by the High Court.  The Tribunal at the material time,  was  the  Deputy Collector.

       In  the  the  premises  the  High  Court has rightly upheld the claim of the original respondent.  The appeal is, therefore dismissed.  There will however, be no order as  to costs.