9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1968. He had two wives. Plaintiffs- Appellants are the first wife and the daughter of S. Ramachandra Reddy. The Defendants-Respondents are the son, second wife and the daughter of said S. Ramachandra Reddy. 5. The Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 which came into force on 20th July, 1955. In the year 1973, Section 8 was enacted in terms whereof a person in possession could be registered as an occupant of the land from the date of vesting thereof. The first respondent was granted occupancy right by the R.D.O., Hyderabad in terms of Section 8 read with Section 10 of the Act. A suit for partition was filed on 3rd September, 1981. Some other persons claiming right as `Inamdars' filed an application before the District Collector under Section 24 of the Act. However, the right of respondent No. 1 thereover was found by the District Collector in terms of an order dated 5th August, 1985. A preliminary issue was raised as regards the jurisdiction of the court which has been upheld by the impugned judgment. 6. Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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) xxxx (3) xxxxxxxx Section 8: Registration of non-protected tenant as occupant:- (1) Every non-protected tenant shall, with effect from the date of vesting subject to Section 37 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inam lands in his possession as may be left over after the allotment under Section 4 which, immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the family holding. (2) The non-protected tenant shall be entitled to compensation from the Government, as provided under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the limit prescribed in Sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not. (3) No non-protected tenant shall be registered as an occupant of any land under Sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been cultivating the said land, must be held to have been doing so for and on behalf of the members of the joint family. There were 14 items of joint family properties. They were living in a house. There is no dispute in regard to item Nos. 7 to 14. Item Nos. 1 to 6 of the Schedule of the Plaint only were the subject matter of the said Act. 11. The said Act did not intend to deprive a co-sharer of his right to which he or she was otherwise entitled to. The word `person' cannot be given a limited meaning. It may be a body of persons or association of person. When an occupancy right is granted in the name of the Manager of the joint family it would enure for the benefit of the entire family. The lands vested in the State. But as soon as the occupancy right is granted, in the event it is held that the same inured to the benefit of the entire family, it becomes partible. Occupancy right in favour of the first respondent has been granted on 24th October, 1978. In terms of Section 8 of the Act the same would be deemed to have been granted on or from 20th July, 1955. The provisions, therefore, are required to be assigned proper and effective meaning. 12. This aspect of the matter ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be trespassers on the property: neither did they claim any title to the lands adversely to the plaintiff-respondent. The deeming provision of Section 6 must therefore ensure for the benefit of all who in the eye of law would be regarded as in actual possession. It follows that the plaintiff had not lost his share in the Bakasht lands and had a right to them though not as tenure-holder or proprietor but certainly as a Raiyat under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs. 13. We will assume that the Act is a complete Code but its operation must be limited to the purpose for which it was enacted. It is a well settled principle of law that a provision in the statute ousting jurisdiction of the Court must receive strict construction. 14. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the civil court's jurisdiction is completely ousted. 15. In Lokhraj (supra) this Court referred to Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh (supra). The judgment of this Court in Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh (supra) was, with respect, not correctly read in Lokhraj (supra). Paragraph 4 of the said decision reads, thus: 4. Consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall ordinarily be a later statute. Ordinarily again it must contain a non-obstante clause. Law of Primogeniture is no longer applicable in India. Such a provision may be held to be unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. See Bhe and Ors. v. Magistrate, Khayelistha and Ors. 18 BHRC 52 17. Where the civil court's jurisdiction is barred expressly it must mean that the same would be confined to the matters covered thereby or connected therewith. The right or the claim must be necessarily required to be dealt with by the authorities under the Act. The grievance/adjudicatory forum provided therein must be competent to resolve the dispute. The right of property is a human right. The Act contemplates divesting of right of an Inamdar. It does not contemplate cessation of a right of a co-sharer or recognition of a right in favour of other co-sharer. The right has to be determined having regard to the possession by way of personal cultivation. The word `possession' in such cases should be given a broader connotation. Possession of one sharer would be deemed to be the possession of others. It is a legal concept. This legal concept cannot be held to have been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
