LexMOHD. SHAUKAT HUSSAIN KHAN versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
'
G
-~
H
MOHD. SHAUKAT HUSSAIN KHAN
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
May 2, 1974
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
42~
Hyderabad lnanzs Abolition Act~ 1955
and Amend111e11t Act No.
11)
of
1956--Repealed by Andhra Pu1desf1
(Te[angana Area)
A?(lh/1011 of Jnanis
Act 9 of 1967 passed by the Andhra P1adesh Leizi.-;falure--Whether t/Je' [nan1
A.ct of 1955 revived on striking down of Act No. 9 of 1967 by the High Court
of Andhrti Pradesh--Whether Abkari rights subs.sting on the Jnarn land$ were-
tdso abolished by the Inam Abolition Act of 1955-Whether co1npe11sation pay-
abie under ,)f!ction 12 of 1955 Act includes cu1npei;sJtio11 fnr abolition of Abkari
rights.
The appellant was holder of the Inam lands with abkari rights granted by
the Nizam.
By vir:tue of the said rights. the appellant was entitled to the full
income cf' the rental licence fee for running liquor shops_ tree tax and
for
tr~c owners' fee.
The principal inam was abolished by the Hyderabad Inams
Abolition Act 195; (and also by Act 10 of 1956). The Andhra Pradesh
Legislature passed A.ct No. 9 of 1967 repealing the 1955 and 1956 Acts.
Act
9 of 1967 provided for the vesting of the Jnam lands in the State without
payment of compensation to the Inan1dars. The Andhra Pradesh High Court
struck down Act No. 9 of 1967. Acting under the provision of the 1955 Act
the State denied the enjoyment of Abkari right to the appellant.
He therefore
filed a suit.
Having lost before the trial court, and the High Court, the appel-
lant approached th;! Supreme Court with the following contentions; (i} that
the striking down of Act 9 of 1967 does not result in the revival of the Inam
Abolition Act. 1955; (ii) tha·t the Abkari rights are not included in the 'lnam'
and were, therefon:, not abolished by the Abolition Act; (iii) the Abolition
Act does not provide for compensation for abolition of Abkari rights and was
therefore hit by Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution.
Disn1is'>ing the appeal.
HELD : (i) The re"Sult of the striking down of Act 9 of 1967 was to revive
the Abolition Act of 1955. The High Court was right in holding that the
Tnam lands had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act and. there·
fore, on the date when Act No. 9 of-1967 was. passed, there wa<; nei~her any
estate which could be abolished nor wa~ there any necessity to effect any agrarian
reform.
[434G]
(ii) LTnder Sec. 2(2} of the Ina1n Abolition ,<\ct, 1955, V.'ords and expres-
sions u:-.ed in the Act but not defined shaU have the ·same meaning assigned
tc !lie said words in the ·Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli, Hyderabad Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 and Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act 1952
2nd the rules thereunder.
S. 2(1-b) of the Andhra Pradesh Rev.enue Ai.:t 8
of 1317 Fasli defines land as including all kinds of benefit pertaining to· lands
or things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to earth and also in-
cludes shares in or charges on. the revenue or rent which are or may be levied
en villages, or other defined areas. The rig_ht to tap or derive benefit fr?m
tP~es standing on the lands i·s a right appurtenant to the lands because a• thing
attached to the Jar.ct is itself a part of the land and is immovable property.
Haque Malakana which is the right in trees is therefore a right appurtenant to
the land. When any Inam land ve_sts in the Govt., the rig]lt to tap
trees
~tan<lincr on the land also vests in the Govt. There cannot be any separation of
these rfghts· when the tre•::! is still a part of the land.
Right to receive nenta·l or
licence ~fee ('Baithak~) for running sendhi shops at Jnam lands aR:pertains to
the ownership of the land. [436E; 437H; 438BC]
State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap [1962] 2 S.C.R. 382. [wherein it is
held that the right of the proprietor of an ~state to h9ld a 'Mela' o~ his. own land
is a right in "estate being appurtenant to1 his own~rshtp of the land relied upon.]
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] l S.C.R.
Under Sec. 3 ( 1) of the Abolition Act, vesting of the Inams in the Govt.
A
is to take place notwit}lstandingi any judgment decree or order of a Civil,
Revenue or Atiyat Court.
Thus Abkari rights being part of the lnam lands
ve.;t in the Govt., with the Abolition of the Ina1ns.
[438G]
(iii) Abkari rights being p~;t of the Inam and having been vested in the
State., t_he compens_ation that payable u/s. 12 of the Abolition A·ct is inclusive
of the AbkaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.