LexRANG NATH versus DAULATRAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G H 99 RANG NATH v. DAULATRAO AND ORS. December 20, 197 4 [K. K. MATHEW, .P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWllLJA, JJ.J 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 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 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 Govern- 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 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 respon- dent no. 1 acquiring the right of an o:cupant under section 6( 1) of the ;\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 A 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.