MAROTI AND ORS. versus DEVRAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAROTI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DEVRAO AND ORS. 
r 
NOVEMBER 17, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
.> 
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (As amended by 
Amendment Act, 1955) : Sections 8 2(w), 34, 37A (/)-Proviso 87. 
Protected tenancy-'Right to claim of-Dispute between original C 
appellant and original respondent-Certificate of a proteeted tenant under 
Section 34. granted to original . respondent by Deputy 
Collector on 
19.12.1956-Claim of original appellant that he was in possession of land 
on 12.3.1956 when Section 37A was inserted in the Act-He obtained a 
certificate of protected tenant under Section 37A-Claim made by him that D 
rights of respondent stood extinguished under Proviso to Section 3 7 A-
Held-Proviso makes it clear that Section 37A(I) shall not affect the rights 
of any person who already holds a certificate as a protected tenant or whosi; 
rights as a protected tenant under the unamended Act are under investigation 
before a competent authority-Where no Tribunal has been constituted under 
Section 2(w)(ii) the Deputy Collector or other officer authorised under sub-
E 
section (4) of Section 87 will be the Tribunal-In the present case since the 
claim of the respondent to be a protected tenant was being investigated by 
the Deputy Collector who was also the Tribunal for the purposes of the 
proviso to Section 37 A(/), the High Court has held that a separate application 
was not necessa1y and the pursuit by the respondent of the proceedings F 
claiming protected tenancy-In these circumstances, can be considered as 
also an application to the Tribunal for safeguarding his rfghts under the 
proviso to Section 37 A-This is entirely because the aulhorily before whom 
the application was pending is the same authority as the Tribunal under the 
proviso-The same Tribunal has ultimately granted to the respondent the 
certificate of protected tenant on 19. /2.56-The rights which are granted G 
>-
under thLs certificate cwmot be held as extinguished in these circumstances--
The High Court rightly upheld 1he claim of the original respondent. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 54I7of1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.90 of the Bombay High Court H 
I 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A in W.P. No. 1347of1986. 
B 
c 
D 
S.V. Tambwekar for the Appellants. 
V.N. Ganpule, S. Biswajit Meitei and S.K. Agnihotri forthe Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
By an earlier judgment & order of this Court dated 11th March 1969 in 
Civil Appeal No .306 of 1966 between the original appellant and the original 
respond1:nts in the same proceedings, this Court gave the following directions: 
"The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding 
stands remanded to the Tahsildar with the direction that he do 
determine whether Dadarao continued to remain a protected tenant till 
the date on which he claimed to exercise his right to purchase the land 
and whether Nivrutti acquired the rights of a protected tenant and if 
so, whether he was entitled to exercise the right of purchase the land, 
and if both Dadarao and Nivrutti were entitled to purchase the land 
or any part thereof the extent to which each of them was entitled and 
to what extent. The Tribunal will decide the question with the least 
practical delay and dispose of the rights and obligations of the parties 
a'~cording to law. No order as to costs." 
E 
These directions were given because there was a dispute between the 
original appellant Nivrutti and the original respondent Dadarao in respect of 
the right to claim protected tenancy under the Hyderabad Tenancy & 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the benefit under Section 38 flowing 
therefrom. 
p 
The dispute related to 10 acres and 34 gunthas of land in Survey No. 
73, Sutardara in village Pathan Mandwa Taluka Mominabad, District Bhir. The 
original r'esponde~t claimed to be a protected tenant in respect of the said 
land. He relied upon Revenue entries.in his favour as a protected tenant since 
1950-51. He had made an application for correction of revenue entries of 
subsequent years. Ultimately, the entries were corrected and a certificate as 
G a protected tenant under Section 34 of the said Act was granted by the 
Deputy Collector on 19.12.56. 
The original appellant claimed to be in possession of the said land on 
12.3.56 when Section 37A was introduced in the said Act. He has obtained 
a certificate a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.