http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE  OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAXMAN ABAJI A ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1971

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1859            1971 SCR  412

ACT: Hyderabad  Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (Act VIII of  1955)- Landlord  and  Tenant-Relationship if continued  to  subsist between date of abolition of Inams vesting land in the state and date of coming into force of the entire Act.

HEADNOTE: On  the  question whether the relationship of  landlord  and tenant  continued to subsist between July 20, 1955 when  the inams were abolished and the land vested in the State  under the  Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (VIII  of  1955) and July 1, 1960 when a notification under s. 1(3)(b) of the Act made the entire Act applicable, HELD:     Though  the  Inams  were abolished  and  the  land vested  in  the State by reason of s. 3(1) of  the  Act  the rights and interests of landlord and tenant mentioned in  s. 3(2)  (b) were preserved by s. 33 inasmuch as s.  3(2)  cls. (d), (g) (h) and (i) did not come into effect until July  1, 1960.  The crucial date for grant of occupancy rights  under the 1955 Act is July 1, 1960 when the entire Act  including, in particular, the provisions regarding grant of  occupancy rights  and cls. (d), (g), (h) and (i) of s. 3(2) came  into effect.  The relation between landlord and tenant ceased  on July 1,1960 and if  any tenant surrendered possession  prior to July 1, 1960, and the inamdar accepted such surrender and remained  in  possession of the land on the  relevant  date, i.e.,  July 1, 1960, the inamdar would be entitled to  grant of  occupancy  rights.   On the other  hand  if  the  tenant claimed to be in possession of the land on the relevant date and  the  inamdar  also  claimed to  be  in  possession  the Government will have to ascertain as to who was lawfully  in possession on the relevant date. [416E; 417G]. Dattatraya  Sadashiv Dand v. Ganpati Raghu Gaoll, 67  B.L.R. 521, approved.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2531  and 2533 of 1966. Appeals from the judgments and orders dated April 1, 1965 of the  Bombay  High Court in Special Civil  Applications  Nos. 804 and 697    of 1964 respectively.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

M.   C. Bhandare, Badri Das ’Sharma for S. P. Nayar, for the appellant (in both the appeals). W.   S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent  No. 1 (in C. A. No. 2533 of 1966). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J.--These two appeals are by certificate from two judg- ments dated 1 April, 1965 of the Bombay High Court. 413  Both  the  appeals  turn  on the  question  as  to  whether relationship  of  landlord and tenant continued  to  subsist between  20 July" 1955 when the inams were abolished by  and the land vested in the, State under the Hyderabad  Abolition of  Inams  Act,  1954 being Act VIII  of  1955  (hereinafter referred  to  as  the  1955 Act) and 1  July,  1960  when  a notification under section 1(3) (b) of the 1955 Act made the entire 1955 Act applicable. The contention on behalf of the State was that when the 1955 Act  came  into  existence  on  20  July,  1955  inams  were abolished and the land vested in the State, and,  therefore, the relationship between the inamdar landlord and the tenant in  respect  of  the inam land ceased.   The  contention  on behalf  of the inamdar and the tenant on the other hand  was that though inams were abolished and the land vested in  the State  on the coming into force of the 1955 Act on 20  July, 1955  the  relationship  of  inamdar  landlord  and   tenant continued  upto 1 July, 1960 because all the  provisions  of the 1955 Act did not come into effect until 1 July, 1960 and those  which did not come into operation had the  effect  of saving  and  preserving  the  relationship  between  inamdar landlord  and tenant.  The High Court upheld the  contention of the inamdar landlord and the tenant. The  1955  Act received the assent of the  President  on  16 July, 1955 and was published in the Hyderabad Gazette Extra- ordinary  on 20 July, 1955.  Under section 1(3) (a)  of  the said 1955 Act sections 1, 2, 3 (except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) of section 3), sections 30 to  34 (both  inclusive),  section 35 to the, extent  to  which  it enabled  rules to be made for the purposes of the  aforesaid sections,  section  36 and section 37 of the 1955  Act  came into force on the date of the publication of the 1955 Act in the  official  Gazette.  The other  important  provision  is section  1(3)  (b) of the 1955 Act which enacted  that the rest of the Act cc shall come into force on such date as the Government  may,  by notification in the  official  Gazette, appoint in this behalf". It  may be stated here that the short title of the 1955  Act was  Hyderabad  Abolition  of  Inams  Act,  1954.   By   the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1959 the title of the 1955 Act was changed to Hyderabad Abolition of  Inams and  Cash Grants Act, 1954.  The Amendment was by reason  of the  Act being made applicable to "cash grants and inams  in the,  nature  of  community service, inams  and  watans"  by introducing  sub-section (2A) in section 1 of the 1955  Act. The 1959 Amendment Act came into force on 1 July, 1960 by  a gazette notification dated 3 June, 1960.  There, was another gazette  notification on 3 June, 1960 No.  HDA-1060-IV-(b)L- that  in exercise of the powers conferred by clause  (b)  of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Hyderabad 414 Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants act 1954. the  Government of  Maharashtra  appointed 1 July, 1960 to be  the  date  on which  the  rest of the said Act "shall  come  into  force". That  is how all the provisions of the 1,955 Act  came  into force on 1 July, 1960. The State relied on section 3(1) of the 1955 Act in  support

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

of  the  proposition that the inams were abolished  and  the land  vested in the State, and, therefore, the  relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end. It is noticeable that section 3(2) of the 1955 Act  provided "save  as expressly provided by or under the  provisions  of the  Act  and  with effect from the  date  of  vesting,  the consequences  mentioned in clauses (a) to (i)  will  ensue". The important clauses in section 3(2) of the 1955 Act are as follows:               "(b)--All  rights, title and interest  vesting               in   the  inamdar,  kabiz-e-kadim,   permanent               tenant,  protected  tenant  and  non-protected               tenant in respect of the inam land, other than               the  interests  expressly saved  by  or  under               provisions of this Act and including those  in               all    communal    lands,    cultivated    and               uncultivated  lands whether assessed or  not),               waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and               minerals, quarries, rivers and streams,  tanks               and  irrigation works, fisheries and  ferries,               shall  cease and be vested absolutely  in  the               State free from all encumberances ;               (d)   all  rents  and land  revenue  including               cesses  and royalties, accruing in respect  of               such  inam  lands,  on or after  the  date  of               vesting, shall be payable to the State and not               to  the  inamdar,  and  any  payment  made  in               contravention  of  this clause  shall  not  be               valid.               (g)   -the inamdar and any other person  whose               rights  have vested in the State under  clause               (b)  shall  be entitled only  to  compensation               from  the Government as provided for  in  this               Act               (h)   -the  relationship with regard  to  inam               land as between the inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim,               permanent  tenant,  protected tenant  or  non-               protected tenant shall be extinguished ;               (i)   - the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim,  permanent               tenant,’ protected tenant, and a non-protected               tenant  of inam lands and any  person  holding               under  them and a holder of a inam,  shall  as               against  the Government, be entitled  only  to               such  rights and privileges and be subject  to               such conditions as are provided for under this               Act and any other rights and privileges  which               may have accrued to any               415               of them in the inam before the date of vesting               against  the inamdar shall case and shall  not               be  enforceable against the Government or  the               inamdar".               Among  these  clauses, clause (b)  which  came               into  effect  on  20  July,  1955  saved  from               vesting  in the State the interests  expressly               saved  by or under the provisions of the  1955               Act.   As  to  what interests  were  saved  or               protected from being vested in the State would               be  found  in section 33 of the 1955  Act  and               clauses  (b),(d), (g), (h) and (i) of  section               3(2) of the 1955 Act.  Section 33 of the  1955               Act is as follows : --               "Nothing in this Act shall in anyway be deemed               to affect the application of the provisions of               the  Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             Act,  1950, to any inam or the  mutual  rights               and obligations of an inamdar and his tenants,               save  in so far as the said provisions are  in               anyway    inconsistent   with   the    express               provisions of the Act". Section 33 therefore provided first that the application  of the  provisions  of the Hyderabad Tenancy  and  Agricultural Lands  Act, 1950 to any inam was not to be affected  by  the 1955  Act  save  in  so far  as  the  said  provisions  were inconsistent  with  the  provisions of the  said  1955  Act. Secondly, section 33 saved the mutual rights and obligations of  an inamdar and his tenant.  It would, therefore,  follow that  the combined effect of clause (b) of Section 3(2)  and of section 33 of the 1955 Act is that the mutual rights  and obligations of the inamdar and the tenant were not  affected by the 1955 Act. The  rights  and obligations of the inamdar would  be  inter alia  to receive rent and land revenue.  The rights  of  the tenant on the other hand would be primarily to continue  in possession  of the land and to enjoy its income  subject  to liability to pay rent and deliver possession to the inamdar in  accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in so far as the same  were applicable. Clauses  (d), (g), (h) and (i) of section 3(2) of  the  1955 Act  did  not  come into effect on  20  July,  1955.   Those clauses  came  into  effect only on  1  July,  1960.   These clauses dealt with some of the mutual rights and obligations of  the  landlord and tenants which were preserved  until  1 July, 1966. Clause (d) deals with rent and land revenue including cesses and royalties in respect of inam lands on or after the  date of  vesting  to  be  payable to the State  and  not  to  the inamdar.   In  view  of the fact that this  clause  was  not brought into operation until 416 1 July, 1960 rent in respect of inam was not payable to  the State on or after the date of vesting, namely, 20 July, 1955 until  the coming into effect of clauses (d), (g),  (b)  and (i) on 1 July, 1960. Clause (h) dealt with extinction of relationship as  between landlord  and  kabz-e-kadim,  permanent  tenant,   protected tenant  or  non-protected tenant with regard to  inam  land. Kabiz-e-kadim,  permanent tenant, protected tenant and  non- protected  tenant are all defined in section 2 of  the  Act. Broadly stated, they are all different categories of tenant. In view of the fact that clause (d) did not come into effect on  20 July, 1955 it follows that the legislative  intention was  that the relationship between inamdar and  tenant  with regard  to inam land would continue and be not  extinguished until the provision was made applicable on 1 July, 1960. Clause  (i)  provided  that with effect  from  the  date  of vesting  rights and privileges which might have  accrued  to any  person in inam before the date of vesting  against  the inamdar would cease and would not be enforceable against the Government  or  the inamdar.  Clause (i) did not  come  into effect until 1 July, 1960 and is another illustration of the saying of mutual rights and obligations of the landlord  and the tenant. It  therefore follows that though the inams  were  abolished and the land vested in the State by  reason of section  3(1) of  the 1955 Act the, rights and interests of  landlord  and tenant  mentioned in section 3(2) (b) of the 1955  Act  were preserved by section 33 of the 1955 Act inasmuch as  section 3(2)  clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of the 1955 Act did  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

come into effect until 1 July, 1960. Clause  (b)  of  section  2 of  the  1955  Act  defined  the expression  "date of vesting".  The Hyderabad  Abolition  of Inams  (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act 10 of  1956)  (hereinafter called the 1956 Amendment Act) which was deemed to have come into force on 20 July, 1955 provided as follows :               "Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the               principal  Act, with effect from the  date  of               publication  of  that  Act  in  the   official               Gazette  and  till the,  commencement  of  the               provisions  mentioned  in clause (b)  of  sub-               section (3) of section 1 of that Act the  full               land revenue, payable in respect of every inam               abolished and vesting in the Government  under               section 3 of that Act, shall be recovered from               the  inamdar  of such inam as if he  were  the               occupant of such land and, on the commencement               of  the said provisions of that Act, it  shall               be   recovered  in  accordance,   with   those               provisions". 417 Section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act provided for recovery of land  revenue from the inamdar with effect from the date  of publication of the 1955 Act, namely, 20 July, 1955.  Section 4  of  the 1956 Amendment Act was to  remain  effective  and operative till the commencement of the provisions  mentioned in section 1 (3) (b) of the 1955 Act, namely, 1 July,  1960. Section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act provided for recovery of land revenue from the inamdar as if he were the occupant  of such  land.  The words ’,as if he were the occupant of  such land"  indicate  that  the  inamdar was  to  be  treated  in possession  of  the inam.  This was  necessary  because  the grant  of occupancy rights mentioned in sections 5 and 6  of the  1955 Act did not come into effect until 1  July,  1960. The  dominant  idea  was to  continue  the  relationship  of landlord and tenant in respect of the inam land and to  look to  the inamdar only for land revenue by treating him to  be an occupant. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1955 Act deal  respectively with  registration  of  inamdars,  kabiz-e-kadim,  permanent tenant,   protected  tenant  and  non-protected  tenant   as occupants.   These  occupancy rights under sections 4  to  8 could not be granted before 1 July, 1960 when those sections came  into force.  Upto 1 July, 1960 the mutual  rights  and obligations of the landlord and the tenant were preserved by providing  inter  alia in section 33 of the  1955  Act,  the application of the Tenancy Act.  Again, after the  abolition of  the inams by the 1955 Act the right. of the landlord  to be in possession was preserved.  Similarly, the right of the tenant to continue in possession was preserved.  Neither the right  of the landlord nor the right of the tenant  was  any right  which  flowed  from any authority  or  grant  of  the Government.   These  rights  emanated  from  the  protective provisions of the statute.  It is because of the continuance of the mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant  that section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act  recognised the  inamdar "as if he were in occupation of the  land"  for the purpose of land revenue.  This liability of the  inamdar to  pay  land revenue was provided in order  to  enable  the inamdar to enjoy all his rights including that of revenue in the inam land. it may also be noticed here that although the scheme of  the 1955  Act was to abolish the inams and to vest the  land  in the State, there was no provision in the Act empowering  the Government  to resume possession.  The relationship  between

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

inamdar  and his tenant came to an end on 1 July, 1960  when the  State by reason of the coming into force of sections  4 to  8  of the 1955 Act granted occupancy rights  to  persons mentioned in those sections. In Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 1966 respondent No. 2 Gajya  was inamdar of survey No. 22 measuring 28 acres 15 gunthas 27-1 S.C. India/71 418 situated at Azambag Village, Taluka Gangakhed at  Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 Laxman claimed to be a tenant on the  basis of the lease executed by respondent No. 2 on 9 April,  1950. After 1 July, 1960 the Tahsildar of Gangakhed took necessary steps to confer the occupancy rights on respondent No. 2  in regard to the said land as he was in possession of the  land on  the date of vesting, namely, 20 July, 1955.   Respondent No. 1 objected to the same and claimed that he was  entitled to the occupancy rights under section 6 of the Act as he was lawfully  in  possession of the said land on 1  July,  1960. ’The Tahsildar by his order dated 20 October, 1962  rejected the  application  of  respondent No.  1  and  conferred  the occupancy  rights on respondent No. 2 as the latter  was  in possession  of  the disputed land on the  date  of  vesting. Respondent  No. 1 being aggrieved by the order preferred  an appeal to the State Government.  The appeal was dismissed on 24  January,  1964.  Respondent No. 1  thereafter  filed  an application  under  Article 227 of the Constitution  in  the Bombay  High  Court.   The High Court by an  order  dated  1 April,  1965 set aside the order made by the Government  and the  Tahsildar and remanded ’the matter to the Tahsildar  to hear all parties including the inamdar and thereafter decide who was lawfully in possession of the land on 1 July,  1960. The  High  Court  took the view that the  crucial  date  for conferment of occupancy rights under the 1955 Act would be 1 July, 1960 when the entire 1955 Act came into operation  and the relationship of landlord and tenant which was  preserved even  after the date of vesting, namely, 20 July, 1955  came to an end on 1 July, 1960. In  Civil Appeal No. 2533 of 1966 respondent No. 1  was  the inamdar  of three pieces of land measuring in all  69  acres and 37 gunthas situated at village Paranda, Taluka  Paranda, district  Osmanabad.   Respondent No. 2 was  the  tenant  of respondent  No.  1  in respect of those  lands  and  was  in possession  of those lands on 20 July, 1955.  Some  time  in the   months  of  May  and  June,  1956  respondent  No.   2 voluntarily  surrendered his tenancy rights in the  land  to respondent No. 1. The surrender was accepted by the inamdar. The  possession of the land was delivered to respondent  No. 1. After the coming into effect of the entire 1955 Act on  1 July,  1960, the Tahsildar notified that respondent  No.  2, the  tenant  was  entitled to  occupancy  rights  under  the provisions  of the 1955 Act.  Respondent No. 1 objected  and claimed that he was entitled to the occupancy rights of  the land  under section 6 of the 1955 Act as he was lawfully  in possession  of the land on 1 July, 1960 and  the  respondent No.  2  had  surrendered his tenancy rights  in  1956.   The Tahsildar  by  his order dated 30 June, 1963  conferred  the occupancy  rights on respondent No. 2, the tenant as he  was in  possession  on  20 July, 1955.  Respondent  No.  1,  the inamdar  preferred  an appeal to the State  Government,  The State                             419 Government  rejected  the appeal on 24 January,  1964.   The inamdar  thereafter made an application to the  Bombay  High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.  The High Court by  an order dated 29 March, 1965 held that  the  material

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

date  for  the purpose of grant of occupancy  rights  was  1 July,  1960 and not the date of vesting of the land in  the State on 20 July, 1955.  The High Court further held that on 1  July, 1960 the inamdar was lawfully in possession of  the land.   The High Court directed that the  Government  should recognise  the  inamdar as occupant under section 6  of  the 1955 Act. The  High Court was right in both the orders.   The  crucial date  for grant of occupancy rights under the 1955 Act is  1 July, 1960 when the entire 1955 Act including in  particular the  provisions  regarding  grant of  occupancy  rights  and clauses  (d), (g), (h) and (i) of section 3(2) of  the  1955 Act came into effect.  The Government became entitled to the possession  of the land.  The Government became entitled  to grant   of  occupancy  rights.   The  relationship   between landlord  and tenant ceased on 1 July, 1960.  If,any  tenant had surrendered possession prior to 1 July, 1960 as happened in  Civil Appeal No. 2533 of 1966 and the  inamdar  accepted such surrender and remained in possession of the land on the relevant date 1 July, 1960 the inamdar would be entitled to grant of occupancy rights.  On the other hand, if the tenant claimed  to be in possession of the land as in Civil  Appeal No.  2531 of 1966 on the relevant date 1 July, 1960 and  the inamdar  also  claimed to be in possession,  the  Government will have to ascertain as to who was lawfully in  possession on the material date 1 July, 1960. The  Bombay  High  Court in  Dattatraya  Sadashiv  Dhand  v. Ganpati  Raghu  Gaoll  (1) held  that  the  relationship  of landlord and tenant continued up to 1 July, 1960.  We are in agreement with the decision on that point. For  these reasons the appeals fail and are  dismissed  with costs, as of one hearing fee. K. B. N.                     Appeals dismissed. (1)  67 Bom.  L. R. 521. 420