LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus LAXMAN ABAJI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
412
B
c
D
E
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
LAXMAN ABAJI Ii: ANR.
A.j1rll 20, 1!171
[C. A. VAIDIALIMGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.)
Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (Act VIII of 1955)- Lant1·
lord and Tenant-Relationship if continued to subsist between date of abo-
lition of lnams vesting land in .rhe state and date of coming into force uf
the entire A.ct.
On tho question whether tho relationship of landlord and tenant con-
tinued to subsist between July 20, 1955 when tho inams wore abolished
and tho land vested in tho State under tho Hyderabad Abolition of loams
Act, 1954 (VIII of 19.SS) and July I, 1960 when a notification under '·
1(3)(b) of the Act made the entire Act applicable,
HELD: Though the loams were abolished and the land vested in the
State bv reason of s. 3(1) of the Act the rights and interests ol landlord
and tenant mentioned in s. 3(2) (b) wore preserved by s. 33 inasmuch as
s. 3(2) els. (d), (g}, (h) and (i) did not come into effect until July I, 1960.
The crucial date for grant of o'·cupancy rights under the 1955 Act is July
1, 1960 when the entire Act including, in particular, the provisions regard·
ing grant of occupancy rights and els. (d), (g), (h) and (i) of s. 3(2) came
into effect. The relation between landlord and tenant ceased on July J,
1960 and if any tenant surrendered possession prior to July I, 1960, and
the inarndar accepted such surrender and remained in possession of the
land on the relevant date, i.e., July I, 1960, the inamdar would be entitkd
to grant of occupancy rights. On the other hand if the tenant claimed
to be in possession of the land on the relevant date and the inamdar also
claimed to be in possession the Government will have to ascertai:t as to
who was lawfully in possession on the relevant date. [416E; 417G].
Dattatraya Sadashiv Dand v. Ganpati Raghu Gao/I, 67 B.L.R. 521, ap-
proved.
Ji'
CIVIL APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2531
·G
and 2533 of 1966.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated April I, 1965
of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 804
and 697 of 1964 respectively.
M. C. Bhandare, Badri Das Sharma for S. P. Nayar, for the
appellant (in both the appeals).
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1
(in C. A. No. 2533 of 1966).
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-These two appeals are by certificate from two judg-
m~ts dated I April, 1965 of the Bombay High Court.
M~ASHTllA V. LAXMAN{.Rqy,J.)
41~
lloth the appeals turn on the question as to wJleUier the ~la-
A.
tionsbip of llindlord and tenant continued to subsist between 20
J .uly, 1955 when the irt<Ulls were abolisl)ed by and the land vested
in the State under the Hyderabad Abolition of loams Act, 19.54
being Act VIII of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act)
and I July, 1960 when a notification under section 1(3) (b) of the•
1955 Act made the entire 1955 Act applicable.
,B
The contention on behalf of the State was that when the 1955
Act C<Ulle into existence on 20 July, 1955 in<U11s were abolished and
theland vested in the State, and, therefore, the relationship between
the in<U11dar landlord and the tenant in respect of the in<Ull land
ceased.
The contention on behalf of the in<U11dar and the tenant
on the other hand was that though inams were abolished and the
!!
land vested in the State on the coming into force of the 1955 Act
on 20 July, 1955 the relationship of inamdar landlord and tenant
continued upto 1 July, 1960 because all the provisions of the 1955
Act did not come into effect until 1 July, 1960 and those which
did not come into operation had the effect of saving and preserv-
ing the relationship between in<U11dar landlord and tenant. The
D
High Court upheld the contention of the in<U11dar landlord and
the tenant.
The 19.55 Act received the assent of the President on 16 July,
1955 and was published in the Hyderabad Gazeue Extra-ordinary
on 20 July, 1955.
Under section 1(3) (a) of the said 1955 Act
:E
sections l, 2, 3 (except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section
(2) of section 3), sections 30 to 34 .(both inclusive), section 35 to
the extent to which it enabled rules to be made for the purposes
of the aforesaid sections, section 36 and section 37 of the 1955
Act came into force on the date of the publication of the 1955 Act
in the official Gazette.
The other important provision is section
I (3) (b) .of Uie 19.55 Act which enacted that !hExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.