An Inamdar appealed against a State Government order recognising his former tenant as an occupant whose rights arose upon vesting of the abolished inam. Supreme Court held no personal hearing was required, tenancy did not end by notice alone, and res judicata barred re-opening the occupancy question; appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent no. 1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
99
A
RANG NATH
v.
DAULATRAO AND ORS.
December 20, 197 4
[K. K. MATHEW, .P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWllLJA, JJ.J
B Natural ;ustice-Sprnking order-.S1<1tc Government while rlisposi1111 11 Hlltllfory rippeal wlwtlu~r bo1111d to give p<'"sonal hearinp and 10 pass a speaki11.:: order.
lhderabad Abolition of lnams anti Cash gra111s Act, 195.f.
IYiiether tenancy cn111es to mi e11d 011 serrice of 11oticc of tcrminatl01i.Pmcticc-Whether a wound contrary to one taken all J/noug/10111 ca11 be al/mrtd c to be raised at tl1e stage of arguments--R<'S j11dicata.
The appellant was the Inamdar and respondent no. 1 was the tenant of the suit land when the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. 1954 was made applicable to the suit land. By virtue of the s-aid Abolition Act, the appellant's lnam was abolished and it vested in the State.
Before the !nam wa·> abolished, the appellant terminated th<} tcn;im·y nl D first rcspQndent by a notice and filed a proceeding for eviction of the tenant t•.nder the Tenancy Act. The said application was rejected by the Naib Ta·hsildar before the Inam was abolished. However, after the Inam was abolished on an appeal the Deputy Collector allowed the appellant to resum~ the suit land. The Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision of respondent No. I on the ground that after the abolition and vesting of the appellant's !nam. the first re·>pondent as a ten<int in possession acquired all the rights of an occupant under the Act. During the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act, the appel.lant contended that the respondent ·no. 1 did not become the o:cupant of the land. The Tahsildar decidesLthat respondent no. I was " tenant in possession an~_._Jherefore, acquire(f the rights of an cccupant. The appellant filed an--appeal before the State Government under the Abolition Ac1 against the said decision of the Tahsildar. The State Government dismfaseJ the said appeal without passing a speaking order and without giving a personal hearing to the appella:it. 'Ihe appellant filed a writ petition against the said order of the State Government which was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant filed the present appeal against the said judgm~nt of the Bomba,· High Court. It was contended before this Court, (i) that the Stal\3 GovernF ment was not justified in rejecting the appellant's st2thtory appeal without giving him a hearing and without passing any reasoned order. (ii) that the lnam in question was a service Inam and hence in view of the provision of Law contained in section !02A(c) of the Tenancy A:t the said Act was not applicable to the land in questio_n; respondent no. I could therefore never be a tenant of the land. (iii) that the proceedings initiated by the appellant for resumption of <land unc!er the Tenancy Act were all 11/tm vfres nd without jurisdiction. there being no relationship of \ancllord and tenant between G the pa1ties under the Tenancy Act. Jurisdiction could not be conferred by an erroneous stand of the appellant that the first respondent was his tenanr. (iv) Jn any view of the matter the tenancy was terminated liy 5ervicc of a notice under s. 44 and the filing of the application under '· 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, against respondent no. I. He was. therefore, not a tenant in possession of the land on 1-7-1960 the date of vesting of the inam. (v) Th High Court has committed an error in holding that its judgment in Special Petition No. 1881 of 1962 operated as res-judicata on the question of respondent no. 1 acquiring the right of an o:cupant under section 6( 1) of the H ;\bolition of Jnams Act.
HEJJ) : ( 1) It was not necessary for the State 'Government to give a personal hearing to the appellant or his representative. When an order is
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
jl975J 3 S.C.R.
liable to I>~ cbalkngc<l under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, courts insist that an appeal, ought to be disposed of by a speaking order giving reasons in its support. It may not be possible in all cases to S•tY that a non-speaking order is bad or invalid. On the facts of the case, the High Court rightly did not set aside the order of the State Government and remit back the appellant's appeal on that ground. No determination or adjudicntion of facts was involved. [103A-D]
(2) Mere service of the notice terminating the tenancy and filing an application for pos::iession does nvt bring an end to the tcoan:y. Until and unless the possession was directed to be delivered to the land holder, the temL1t continued in possession as a tenant. The decision of the full bench of Bombay High Court reported in 67 Bombay Law Reporter 521 uoubtetl. [104-F-G; 105·A·Bl (3 J The appellant all along contended that the lnam was .not a servii::e Inum. The said contention is contrnry to the case of th~ appellant throughot:t. [I 03·FI
( 4) The l1pp;:lhint cannot contend that re:;ponde111 no. 1 is nut a tenant. Tim appellant ull uiong ttwted respondent no. I as a tenant. The appellant di<l not even assert in the Statement of cnsc or the auditionnl grounds thnt 1•es1Xlndent no. l is not a tenant", Rcspcndent no. 1 was in c111tivnting posses· sion and wns puyin.~ rent to the nppcllnnt. Jt ;;oulp not be in n·ny cnpnci~y other thnn a tenant. £103H-104B] (5) TI1e High Court rightly held that issue ns to v,:hethcr respondent no. 1 ncqc.ire<l the right as un occupant or not was barred on the . principles of res imlicata in view of the decision of the High Court in the earlier petition. [105-EJ
A
Ji
c
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1968.
Appeal by S~lccial Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 14th October, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. (Sp!. C. Appln. of l019 of 1965).
B. /V. Lokur and A. G. Ramaparkhi, for the Appellant.
E
S. T. Desai and R. B. Datar, for Respondent No. 1.
M. ,'. Shroff, for Respondent No. ~.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALTA, L-ln this appeal filed by special leave of this Cou1·t it would be noticed that the appellant has 2mlcuvourcd on one ground or the other to g1;t the; 15 acres and 14 Gunthas oi land in Osmanabad which nt one time formed part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and eventually came to be a part of the State of Maharashtra. The disputec1 land is comprised in Survey No. 206/B. There is no dispute that the appellant was the Inamdar of this land. The Hyderabad Abl11ition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 being H.vderabad Act No. VITT of 1955 (hereinafter called the Abolition of Jnams Act) came into f,orcc on its publication in the gazette on the 20th July. 1955. The Abolition of Inams Act was amended by the Hyderabad Abolit:on of Inarns (Amendment) Act, 1956 and wris further amended by Bombay Act 64 of 1959 which came into force on 1st July, 1960. Tt is no longer in controversy that the Abolition of Inams Act bec.amc applicable to the appellant's Inam by virtue of the amended provisions on 1-7 -1960 as a result of which under Sec:tion 3 appellant's ·Inam was abolished and vested in the State. Upon its vesting, certain consequences followed which will be adverted to hereinafter in this iudgmcnt.
]?
G
H
1 RANGNATH \I. DAULATRAO (Untwalia, /.)
101
·; ..
[1975] 3 s.c.R ..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 02
A
in possession of the land at the time of vesting hall be entitled to occupancy right under section 6(1) of the Act in respect of $e said land." He finally directed that a copy of t)l.is order be sent to the Tehsildar Osmanabad for further necessar·y action. The Tehsildar by his order dated 15-7-1963 decided the matter in favour of tho first respondent and held him to be a tenant in possessi.on of the land on the date of vesting of the Inam and hence a prson acquiring the rights of an occupant under section 6 ( l). The objection of the appellant was rejected by the Tehsildar.
The appellant filed an appeal before the State Government under . sci.:tion 2A(2) of the Abolition of Inams Act fr<Jm the decision of the Tehsildar. The rejection of the appellant's appeal by the State Govnnment was conununicated to him by a letter dakd 27th November, 1964 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department. The appellant challenged the order of the State Government in Special Civil Application No. 1019 of 1966 under Articles 226 and 227 of the (',onstitution of India in the Bombay High Court. A Bench of the High Court dismissed his Writ Application by it~ judgment and order dated 14-10-1966. The appellant prese11ted this appeal by special leave of this Court.
H
c
D
Mr. B. N. Lokur, learned counsel. for the appellant made the following submissions in support of the appeal :
E
G
H
RA~G'.'IATH v. DAULATRAO (Untwa/ia. J.)
103
A In our judgmeni none of the points urged on behalf~f the appelLrnt is flt t9 succeed. . .
It was not necessary for the State Government to give a personal' hl.'.aring to the appellant or his authorised representative before disposal of his appeal. As has been repeatedly pointed out by · this B Court the State Government ought to have disposed of the statutory a ppcal of the appellant filed under· section 2A ( 2) of the Abolition ,,f Inams Act by a speaking order. It may. not be possible in all cases to say that a non-speaking order is bad or invalid on that account alone but when an order is liable to be challenged under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, CoU.rts do insist that an appeal 1)f the kind filed by the appellant should be and ought to have been disposed of by a speaking order giving some reasons in its support. c But on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the High Court did not feel persuaded, and in our opinion rightly, to set aside the order of the State Government and remit back the appellant's appeal to them merely on that account. No determination or adjudication of facts was involved. The decision of the case rested on the points of law. The High Court did examine the question as to whether D respondent no. l could not be a tenant of the appellant because of the reason that the Inam had been held to be a Watan foam and oonsequently according to the appellant it was a service Inam. In the present proceeding the High Court pointed out that respondent no. I was admittedly the appellant's tenant. Mere service of notiee under section 44 of the Tenancy Act had .not terminated the tenancy. The proceeding for resumption of the land under the Tenancy Act finally E terminated against the appellant on the ground that respondent no. J could no longer be evicted as he had acquired the right of an occupant under the Abolition of Inam Act.
D
On the finding recorded by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 30-11-1962 that the appellant held the Inam as a Watan for the purpose of this case we shall assume in his favour that it was a service F lnam and hence the provisions of the Tenancy Act were not applicable. But such a stand is. wholly contrary to the appellant's case in the pre-. vious proceedings for resumption of land. Every where the appellant asserted that respondent no. I was his tenant, so much so that in his Special Civil Application No. 1881 of 1962 a copy of which was ,given to us by Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, he had stated in paragraph 7 "That the learned Member of the G Tribunal has failed to apply his mind to the provisions of Sec. I 02 ( c) which was in force prior to the substitution of new Section 102-A(c)
(1975) 3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
104
A
·asserted by the appellant not even in the statement of the case and the additional grounds filed ·in this Court except in the argument put forward by his learned counsel that the Inamdar of the kind the appellant was, had no r.ight to induct any tenant on -the foam land. The fact remains that respondent no. 1 was in culth1 ating posscsi;;ion of the land in qu1~stion paying rent to the appellant since long tcforc the vesting of the lnam. It could not but be in his capacity as a tenant of the appellant. It is not open to the appdlant to assert that the order mude bv the Revenue Tribunal or as a mutter of that in his earlier Specia( Civil Application by the Bombay High Court was in. a proceeding in which there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the tirst authority and consequently the order was also a nullity.
There is no .substance in the 4th submission of Mr. Lokur. Section 44(1) of the Tenancy Act reads as follows :
44( 1) ''Notwithstanding anything contai1ml in section 6 or 19 but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) to ( 7), [landholder (not being a landholder within the meaning of Chapter IV-C) may] after giving notice to the tenant and making an application for possession as provided in subsection (2). terminate the tenancy ofany land, if the landholder bonatide requires the land for cultivating it personally."
Section 32 presnibcs the procedure of taking possession of the land and sub-s•ction (2) says "Save· as otherwise provided in subsection (3A), no Jandhoklcr shall obtain possession of :my land or dwelling house hl!ld by a tenant except unckr an order of the Tehsil· dar, for which he shall apply iil the prescribed form within a period of two years from the date of th'! commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricu.tural La111.ls (Amendment) Act, 1957. or the date on which the right to such possession accrued to him whichever is later." Reading the wordings of sections 44( I) and 32(2) of the Tcnncy Act it was not possible tci accept the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant that by mere service of notice and the filing of application for possession the tenancy had some to an end. Until and unless possession was directed to be delivered to the landholder by the competent authority, ·the tenant continued in possession and ontinued to be so as a tenant. A full Bench of the Bombay High Comt in Dattatmya Sadashii· Dhond v. Ganpati Raglm Gaoli(') expressed the view at pag 529 'Th;: manner in which a tenancy is to be terminated is, howe"'.er, laid down in section 44. Under this section the tcn~ncy terminates when after giving the requisite notice the landholder makes an applici1tion for possession to the Tehsildar. Thereafter the tenant's possession is not unlawful, but it is not held by him ns a tenant. He has an estate in possession, which he will lose if the Tehsildar m:1kes an order in favom of the landholder. If, howewr, the Tchsildar rejects the appl.ication of the l<mdhokler, the termination uf tenancy by the landholder will kcome ineffec\ive. The tenancy will revive and the tenant will ..:onrinuc in
B
c
D
F
G
i I
--(i)- 67--&~bay -Law Reporter, 521.
RANGNATH r. l),\ULATRAO ( Ull/walia, .!.)
105
A po-;scssiui1 as if his tenancy had not been ter:ninatcd.'' Although the . view so expressed by the Bombay High Court may not be quite accurate and the better view to take may be to say that the process of termination of tenancy started by the service of notice and the filing of the application for possession by the landholder is not complete until an order for possession is made by the competent authority and, thereB fore, there is no termination of tenancy until an order for possession follows in the process, the matter become beyond the pale of controversy in view of rule 28(5) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules made in accordance with sub-section (10) of section 44 of the Act. Sub-section ( 10) empowers the Staie Government to provide by rules the time when the termination of tenancy will take c.ffcct and rule 28 (5) says that on the granting of the application for c possession the tenancy shall stand terminated frmn the commencement of the year following the year in which the application is granted. It is, therefor!!, clear that the tenancy did not come to an end by the mere service of notice and the filing of. the application by the appellant :1gainst respondent no. 1 under the Tenancy Act. · He was a tenant when the Inam of the ap~llant vested in the State on the 1st of July, I 960. Indisputably, he was in. possession of the land on that date. D Consequently he acquired the rights of an occupant under section 6( f) of the Abolition of Inams Act. ·There was no error committed . hy the High Court in deciding this question against the appellnnt..
D
The High Court was also right in holding that the issue as to the <1c4uiring by respondent no. 1 of the right of an occupant was barred on the principles of res judicata in view of the previous decision in the earlier Special Civil Application. Neither the Revenue Tribunal nor the High Court in tiie earlier proceeding went into the merits of the <1ppclla11t's claim for resumption of the land. Jt defeated him on the ground that since respondent no .. 1 had acquired the right of an occupant on the abolition and the vesting of the Inam the application under section 32(2) of the Ten<mcy Act had got tc fail. The issue directly and substantially fell for det~rmination in the earlier case. ft was decided against the appellant and he cannot re-agitate the very ame question in this procedmg. ·
E
For the n::asons stated above tho appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to Responrcnt No. I above.·
P.!-!P.
Appeal di.1mi:>sed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government was bound to give a personal hearing and pass a speaking order when disposing of a statutory appeal under the Abolition of Inams Act.
Whether mere service of a termination notice and filing an application for possession brings a tenancy to an end.
Whether the respondent had acquired occupant's rights under section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, and whether res judicata barred re-agitating that issue.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dattatraya Sadashiv Dhond v. Ganpati Ragho GaoliDoubted
67 Bombay Law Reporter 521
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Rang Nath
Daulatrao
K. K. Mathew
P. N. Bhagwati
N. L. Untwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
