1974 (12) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the State Government in rejecting the appellant's statutory appeal without a hearing and without a reasoned order.
2. Applicability of the Tenancy Act to the Inam land in question.
3. Validity of the proceedings initiated by the appellant for resumption of land under the Tenancy Act.
4. Termination of tenancy by service of notice and filing of application under the Tenancy Act.
5. Res judicata effect of the High Court's judgment in Special Petition No. 1881 of 1962.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Justification of the State Government in Rejecting the Appellant's Statutory Appeal without a Hearing and without a Reasoned Order:
The appellant contended that the State Government was not justified in rejecting his statutory appeal without giving him a hearing and without passing a reasoned order. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for the State Government to give a personal hearing to the appellant or his authorized representative before disposing of his appeal. However, the Court emphasized that the State Government should have disposed of the statutory appeal by a speaking order, providing some reasons in its support. Despite this, the High Court did not find it necessary to set aside the order of the State Government and remit the appellant's appeal merely on this account, as the decision rested on points of law rather than factual adjudication.

2. Applicability of the Tenancy Act to the Inam Land in Question:
The appellant argued that the Inam in question was a service Inam and, therefore, the Tenancy Act was not applicable to the land. The Supreme Court noted that in previous proceedings, the appellant had consistently asserted that respondent no. 1 was his tenant. The Court found that the appellant could not change his stand and assert that the Tenancy Act was not applicable. The Court assumed for the purpose of this case that the Inam was a service Inam, but noted that this stand was contrary to the appellant's previous assertions.

3. Validity of the Proceedings Initiated by the Appellant for Resumption of Land under the Tenancy Act:
The appellant claimed that the proceedings initiated for resumption of land under the Tenancy Act were ultra vires and without jurisdiction, as there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that respondent no. 1 was in cultivating possession of the land, paying rent to the appellant long before the vesting of the Inam. The Court held that it was not open to the appellant to assert that the previous proceedings were without jurisdiction.

4. Termination of Tenancy by Service of Notice and Filing of Application under the Tenancy Act:
The appellant argued that the tenancy was terminated by service of notice under section 44 and the filing of the application under section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court held that mere service of notice and filing of an application did not terminate the tenancy. The tenancy would only terminate upon an order for possession made by the competent authority. The Court cited a full bench decision of the Bombay High Court, which stated that the process of termination of tenancy is not complete until an order for possession is made by the competent authority. The Court concluded that respondent no. 1 continued to be a tenant on the date of vesting of the Inam and acquired the rights of an occupant under section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act.

5. Res Judicata Effect of the High Court's Judgment in Special Petition No. 1881 of 1962:
The appellant contended that the High Court erred 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 rights of an occupant. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the issue of respondent no. 1 acquiring the right of an occupant was directly and substantially determined in the earlier case. The Court held that the appellant could not re-agitate the same question in the present proceeding.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the points urged by the appellant were fit to succeed. The Court affirmed that respondent no. 1 was a tenant in possession of the land on the date of vesting of the Inam and, therefore, acquired the rights of an occupant under section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs to respondent no. 1.