Case Note & Summary
The dispute centred on possession of tenancy land protected under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The original owner was Madanlal Dahiwal, and Narayan Sitaram Mudhal was declared a protected tenant. Respondent No.1, succeeding the protected tenant, agreed to sell the land to the petitioner on 06-12-1976. The Additional Tahsildar suo motu initiated proceedings under Section 98C and declared the agreement invalid as contravening Section 50B. The petitioner’s appeal succeeded, but the respondent’s revision before the Additional Collector was allowed, directing the respondent to file a separate possession application. The petitioner’s further challenge up to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application under Section 98C, and the Deputy Collector passed an ex parte order on 29-04-2006 directing possession without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner’s appeal against that order is pending. The respondent then filed a possession application before the Tahsildar, who, on 06-11-2008, held it could not be decided by him and directed filing before the Deputy Collector, but on 10-11-2008, the Tahsildar issued a letter to the Circle Inspector to take possession. The petitioner appealed, and the Deputy Collector granted stay on 20-01-2009, yet a backdated panchnama dated 21-01-2009 was prepared. The Deputy Collector’s order dated 23-10-2009 dismissed the appeal and directed possession to be handed over to the respondent. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 26-04-2011. The petitioner argued that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction under Section 98A, the Deputy Collector’s order travelled beyond pleadings, and the ex parte order violated natural justice. The High Court found that the Tahsildar’s order was without jurisdiction, the Deputy Collector exceeded appellate powers, and the entire process was vitiated. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration of the possession application in accordance with law, with liberty to the respondent to approach the competent authority.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Tahsildar - Section 98A Powers - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Sections 98A, 98C - The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for possession under Section 98A, such power being vested with the Deputy Collector; the order dated 10-11-2008 directing the Circle Inspector to take possession was without authority and unsustainable (Paras 10-12).
B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Limits of Deputy Collector - Scope of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Deputy Collector, while hearing an appeal against the Tahsildar’s order, cannot travel beyond the pleadings and grant relief not sought, such as directing possession to be handed over to respondent No.1; such an order is in excess of jurisdiction (Paras 11, 14).
C) Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Right to Hearing - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - An order under Section 98C passed without notice to the affected party violates natural justice; the order dated 29-04-2006 was passed ex parte, and the pending appeal against it must be decided on merits (Paras 8, 10).
D) Tenancy Law - Protected Tenant - Validity of Sale Agreement - Section 50B, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - An agreement to sell by a protected tenant in contravention of Section 50B is invalid; earlier proceedings had declared the agreement dated 06-12-1976 invalid, but the tenant was given liberty to seek possession separately (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to entertain and pass orders on the application for possession under Section 98A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and whether the Deputy Collector exceeded jurisdiction by directing handover of possession to the respondent while deciding an appeal against the Tahsildar's order.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 10-11-2008 by the Tahsildar, the order dated 23-10-2009 by the Deputy Collector, and the order dated 26-04-2011 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar to decide the application for possession afresh in accordance with law, with liberty to respondent No.1 to file an appropriate application before the competent authority.
Law Points
- Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain possession application under Section 98A
- such power lies exclusively with Deputy Collector
- Deputy Collector cannot travel beyond pleadings and grant relief not prayed for in appeal
- order of Deputy Collector dated 29-04-2006 passed without notice violates natural justice
- principles of natural justice require hearing before passing adverse orders
- preparing backdated panchnama during stay order is illegal
- separate proceedings required for declaration of invalidity of alienation under Section 98C and consequent possession
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 18
WRIT PETITION NO.3652 OF 2011
V.D. Salunke, V.N. Yelnoorkar, N.H. Borade
Sambha s/o Narayan Mudhal, The Tahsildar, Kalamnuri, The Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms), Hingoli, The Collector, Hingoli, The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over possession of tenancy land under Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, involving challenge to orders of revenue authorities on grounds of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order of Tahsildar dated 10-11-2008, the order of Deputy Collector dated 23-10-2009, and the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 26-04-2011, and to restrain dispossession from the suit land.
Filing Reason
Tahsildar issued letter to take possession despite lacking jurisdiction, Deputy Collector exceeded appellate jurisdiction by directing handover of possession, and a backdated panchnama was prepared in violation of stay order.
Previous Decisions
Additional Tahsildar order dated 26-10-1987 declaring agreement invalid; Deputy Collector order dated 06-07-1991 allowing petitioner's appeal; Additional Collector allowed respondent's revision; Divisional Commissioner rejected petitioner's revision on 08-02-2006; High Court dismissed writ petition on 13-03-2008; Supreme Court dismissed SLP on 22-09-2008; Deputy Collector ex parte order dated 29-04-2006 directing possession; Tahsildar order dated 06-11-2008 and letter dated 10-11-2008; Deputy Collector order dated 23-10-2009; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order dated 26-04-2011.
Issues
Whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction under Section 98A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to entertain and decide the possession application.
Whether the Deputy Collector could direct handover of possession to the respondent while deciding an appeal against the Tahsildar's order.
Whether the ex parte order dated 29-04-2006 passed by the Deputy Collector without notice violated natural justice.
Whether the preparation of backdated panchnama on 21-01-2009 despite a stay order dated 20-01-2009 vitiated the proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 98A; only the Deputy Collector could exercise such powers.
Deputy Collector traveled beyond the pleadings and prayers in appeal by directing possession to respondent No.1, which was not sought in the appeal.
The order dated 29-04-2006 was passed without serving notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.
Despite a stay granted by the Deputy Collector on 20-01-2009, a backdated panchnama was prepared on 21-01-2009, indicating illegality.
The Tahsildar's order dated 06-11-2008 was contradictory: it allowed the application but directed filing before the Deputy Collector, and the subsequent letter for possession was without authority.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction under Section 98A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to entertain an application for possession, such power being exclusively vested in the Deputy Collector. In appeal, the Deputy Collector cannot travel beyond the pleadings and grant relief not prayed for. An order passed without notice to the affected party violates natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
the Tahsildar had no power to entertain the application entertaining the prayer of respondent No.1 for possession of the land in dispute since such powers are with the Deputy Collector under Section 98A of the said Act
the Deputy Collector, travelled beyond the pleadings and prayers of the appellant and while dismissing the said appeal, directed to give possession of the land in question to respondent No.1
the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 29-04-2006 was without hearing the petitioner
Procedural History
The land in dispute was originally owned by Madanlal Dahiwal, and Narayan Sitaram Mudhal was declared a protected tenant under Section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Respondent No.1 agreed to sell the land to the petitioner on 06-12-1976. The Additional Tahsildar initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 98C and by order dated 26-10-1987 declared the agreement invalid under Section 50B. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Collector, Parbhani, who allowed the appeal on 06-07-1991. Respondent No.1 filed a revision before the Additional Collector, Hingoli, which was allowed, with a direction to file a separate application for possession. The petitioner's revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 90 was rejected on 08-02-2006. The petitioner's Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2006 was rejected on 13-03-2008, and his Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 22-09-2008. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 98C before the Deputy Collector, Hingoli, and an ex parte order dated 29-04-2006 directed possession without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal (No. 41/A/H/2008) against that order, which is pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a possession application before the Tahsildar on 06-07-2008. The Tahsildar by order dated 06-11-2008 allowed the application but directed filing before the Deputy Collector under Section 98A. Despite this, on 10-11-2008, the Tahsildar issued a letter to the Circle Inspector to take possession. The petitioner filed an appeal (TNC/1/2009) before the Deputy Collector, who on 20-01-2009 granted a stay. However, a backdated panchnama dated 21-01-2009 was prepared showing possession taken. The Deputy Collector's order dated 23-10-2009 dismissed the appeal and directed handover of possession to respondent No.1. The petitioner's revision (No. 43B2009 H) before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was dismissed on 26-04-2011, leading to the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: Section 38, Section 50B, Section 98, Section 98A, Section 98C, Section 90
