text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
S.38 of the said Act deals with right of protected tenant to purchase land STA |
S.39 deals with right of protected tenants to exchange lands STA |
S.40 of the said Act makes rights of protected tenant heritable STA |
Sub-s.(2) of s.40 of the said Act indicates who are the heirs who would be entitled to hold the tenancy on the death of the protected tenant and on what terms STA |
Sub-s.(3) of s.40 of the said Act provides that if a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs all his rights shall be so extinguished STA |
The explanation to sub-s.(3) of s.40 of the said Act provides who should be 'deemed to be the heirs' of a protected tenant STA |
Subs.(4) of s.40 stipulates that the interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant shall form sixty per cent STA |
It is necessary also to note the provisions of s.99 of the Act STA |
It is as follows: "99.Bar of Jurisdiction:-(1 STA |
Save as provided in this Act STA |
no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle,decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled,decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar,Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government STA |
No order of the Tahsildar,Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act,shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court STA |
S.102 of the said Act stipulates that the Act shall not apply to certain lands and areas and provides inter alia as follows: "102.Nothing in this Act shall apply-- To lands leased,granted,alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or the State Government,a local authority or a Cooperative Society S... |
It is relevant at this stage to refer to certain provisions of the Central Act to consider the controversy involved in this appeal.the Central Act was enacted giving power for requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property for Union purposes Ratio |
S.3 of the said Act gave power to requisition immovable property STA |
S.4 of the said Act empowers taking possession of requisitioned property STA |
S.5 deals with rights over requisitioned property STA |
S.6 deals with the power of release from the requisitioning STA |
S.7 authorises the Central Government where it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to acquire requisitioned property STA |
S.8 deals with 'principles and method of determining compensation either for requisitioning or acquisition of the property and,inter alia,provides for appointment of an arbitrator in certain contingencies in case there was no agreement for determining compensation STA |
S.9 deals with the payment of compensation and provides that the amount of compensation payable under an award shall,subject to any rules made under that Act,be paid by a competent authority to the person or persons entitled thereto in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the award STA |
Suspecting that the entry in the Protected Tenancy Register might not be genuine,on or about 24th of October,1970 the Tahsildar passed an order cancelling that entry FAC |
The main question centres around the right of Abdul Khader,respondent No.1 herein to the compensation awarded by the arbitrator,it is therefore,necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the said order which inter alia,stated as follows: "By perusal of the Tenancy Register of 1958 it is evident that Sri Mohd FAC |
Abdul Khader is not a genuine protected tenant FAC |
The entries of this particular so called tenant is doubtful FAC |
I suspect that somebody has tampered the register and entered the name of Sri Mohd FAC |
Abdul Khader FAC |
Separate enquiry in this connection is going on in this office to know under what circumstances such entry has been made and copy also issued without knowledge of the Tahsildar FAC |
Hence I suspect the entry and order to cancel the copy of the tenancy issued in favour of Sri Modh FAC |
Sd- Tahsildar FAC |
Hyderabad West Taluk FAC |
This order of cancellation was challenged by Abdul Khadar by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being W .P.No.1786 of 197 1 and by judgment and order passed on 27th August,197 FAC |
1,the learned single Judge,Vaidya,J.held,inter alia,as follows: "Whether the petitioner (Abdul Khader) is a protected tenant or whether he has any prima facie interest in the suit property are matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the arbitrator who has to be appointed under S.8 of the 'Central Act FAC |
In the appeal of Abdul Khader the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer while questioning entry of the name of Abdul Khader in the Register is a genuine one or net and while it is stated that it was entered in the Register in such suspicious way by giving Serial No.1/A between Serial Nos.1 and 2 of Register being E... |
On or about 19th of April,1972 FAC |
the order was passed by the District Revenue Officer who held that Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant FAC |
He held further that Khasra Pahani which is the basic record of occupancy period after spot inspections does not find the name of Abdul Khader and further held that all entries except this entry in the Protected Tenancy Register prepared under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act was supported by an enquiry FAC |
It was in those circumstances held by him that the entry was a spurious one FAC |
In Civil Revision Petition No.1006 of 1972 which was filed by Abdul Khader as against others,Justice R.Ramachandra Raju of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on or about 19th August,1974 held that Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant and directed deletion of entry made in the Final Record of tenancies as a spurious one F... |
The learned Judge observed,inter alia,as follows: "I am told by the counsel for both the parties that the lands in question were already acquired for military purpose under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable property Act,1952 and that Sri M.S.Sharma,the Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court,Hyderabad has al... |
Not only that,in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner in this Court,it was held that it is not necessary to go into the question whether the petitioner is a protected tenant or whether he has any prima facie interest in the property because they are the matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the ... |
Now,as the arbitrator has already been appointed,he will go into the matter as to whether the petitioner was a protected tenant of the lands or not and if he was the protected tenant to what share in the compensation amount he would be entitled to RLC |
Under these circumstances,the C.R.P.is dismissed with a direction that the entry made in the Final Record of Tenancies that the petitioner was the protected tenant,for the lands in question which is spurious as found by both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer should be deleted RLC |
The matter was brought to this Court by a special leave application and this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil RPC |
No.10 of 1975 on or about 30th January.1975 held that since the question whether the petitioner in that case namely,Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had been left open by the High Court to be decided by the Arbitrator u/s.8 of the Central Act,special leave petition was rejected with those observations RPC |
Thereafter there was an order appointing arbitrator on 29th of March,1975 RPC |
u/s.8(1)(b) of the Central Act RPC |
Claim petition was filed by the appellant before the arbitrator' Claim petition was also filed by Abdul Khader claiming 60'% of compensation as a 'protected tenant RPC |
There was an award by the arbitrator holding that as this Court had left it open to decide whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant FAC |
Despite the objection exercising the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to go into the question of protected tenant,the arbitrator held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant FAC |
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award,the appellant claiming as one of the owners of the property filed a statutory appeal to the High Court FAC |
In the meantime Abdul Khader filed an application on or about 21st of October,1984 for adducing additional evidence to mark Kaulnama dated 2nd of December,1950 for the first time and Oubuliatnama dated 2nd December,1950 as exhibits in deciding the protected tenancy rights FAC |
The appellant objected to that application but the High Court on 1st April,1985 FAC |
appointed Advocate Commissioner to record additional evidence FAC |
On or about 22nd of April,1985 FAC |
the appellant filed the objection reserving the right of raising the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to go into the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant in the light of the Act 21 of 1950.Three civil appeals were filed before this Court against the order of the High Court on 15th May,1985.This Court pass... |
The appeal is heard FAC |
Dr FAC |
Chitale learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court should be directed to consider the issues relating to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator appointed and functioning under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,195 i to decide whether a person is protected tenant of an agricu... |
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,1950.We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above question FAC |
After giving our due consideration to the question we are of the view that the High Court should determine this question FAC |
The High Court shall decide the question of jurisdiction referred to above in light of the submissions to be made by both the parties FAC |
Shri Subba Rao,learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants should not be permitted to withdraw from the authorities concerned more than 40 per cent of the total compensation awarded in respect of the lands in question pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court FAC |
We agree with his submission FAC |
We direct that the appellants shall withdraw not more than 40 per cent of the compensation pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court FAC |
The remaining 60 per cent shall be disbursed in accordance with the directions to be given by the High Court after hearing all the parties concerned FAC |
The appeals were disposed of accordingly FAC |
Other C.M.Ps.were filed for clarification of the second part of the order dated 19th August,1985 and this Court on 29th November,1985 in CMPs FAC |
Nos.4692 to 4694 of 1985 clarified and ob-served that there was no need for further clarification FAC |
It was observed that the High Court was at liberty to consider the claims to be made by both the parties and pass any fresh order with regard to the disbursement of the remaining 60% of the compensation FAC |
The judgment under appeal was passed on 15th of April,1986.This appeal arises out of the said judgment FAC |
In the judgment under appeal which is directed against the award made by the arbitrator formulated the following four issues--(1) what is the value of the land; (2) who are entitled to the compensation amount; (3) whether Abdul Khader is a protected tenant of Sail Gulshan of the area 19-02 guntas excluding the land of ... |
It has to be borne in mind that in the award,the arbitrator after exhaustively discussing the evidence on record held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such further held that he was entitled to 60% of the compensation money payable for the acquisition of the land excluding the land of buildings,wells etc ... |
In this appeal we are concerned with the question whether the High Court was right in upholding the award of the arbitrator so far as it has held in favour of Abdul Khader and his rights to get 60% of the compensation Ratio |
The High Court dealt with the value of the land Ratio |
We are not concerned with the challenge to this aspect in this appeal Ratio |
The High Court further modified a portion of the order in view of the decision of this Court in Bhag Singh v FAC |
Union Territory of Chandigarh FAC |
A.I.R.1985 S.C.1576 1985 Indlaw SC 246 on the question of solarium and interest on the amount awarded FAC |
The judgment also dealt with the question as to who were the successors of Nawaz Jung FAC |
We are also not concerned with this aspect of the matter inasmuch as the same is the subject matter of another appeal being Civil Appeal No.4406 of 1986 Ratio |
We are concerned in this appeal with the right of Abdul Khader Ratio |
The High Court discussed 18 documents out of which two are challans and other depositions FAC |
Kowlnama executed in favour of Shaik Hussain was not filed FAC |
The Kowlnama executed in favour of the son,Mohd FAC |
Abdul Khader,on December 3,1950 was filed and was marked as Exhibit C-1.The document recited: "permitted to utilise garden fruits,flowers and mango FAC |
fruits".The tenant was permitted to raise flower trees at his own expenses FAC |
The High Court took into consideration the judgment in Suit No.13(1) of 195 1-52 by the tenant FAC |
The High Court on consideration of these documents was of the view that these documents showed unequivocally that the tenancy was in favour of Shaik Hussain from 1935.After his death Mohd FAC |
Abdul Khader was recognised as the tenant FAC |
The land was taken possession of under a panchanama dated 12th of September,1963.According to the High Court the documents discussed in the judgment indicated that Shaik Hussain was a tenant from 1935.After his death on July 18,1949,his son Mohd FAC |
Abdul Khader became a tenant FAC |
In this background the Court addressed itself to the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not entitled to 60% of the compensation FAC |
No document was filed to show that Abdul Khader was declared by the revenue courts as a protected tenant Ratio |
The High Court was of the view that there was surfeit of evidence prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Act that Shaik Hussain was a tenant of the land FAC |
The question was whether on enforcement of the said Act Abdul Khader,respondent herein,was a protected tenant FAC |
The High Court thereafter discussed the facts mentioned hereinbefore about the order of the District Revenue Officer and the orders of this Court referred to hereinbefore FAC |
The High Court noticed the position that under the said Andhra Pradesh Act it was for the revenue authorities to order whether a tenant is a protected tenant under section 34,s.37 'and section 37A of the said Act FAC |
Section 37A was enacted on 12th of March,1956.The High Court was,however,of the view that it cannot be said that it was for the revenue authorities alone to decide the issue because the arbitrator was ordered to decide the issue by the High Court on 19th August,1974 and by this Court on 30th of January,1975.The High Co... |
The High Court was of the view that the arbitrator was to decide that question and the arbitrator was not in error in deciding the issue in the manner it did FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.