INDERKANTI VENKATA SUBBIAH Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD (NOW A.P.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals are before us on reference by Division Bench of which one of us was a member. They arise out of a common judgment passed by the Nazim Sadar Adalat Gulbarga in two separate appeals, one brought by defendant No. and the other by defendants 2 and 3, whereby he allowed both the appeals and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case are not much in dispute being largely a matter of record. The real controversy is in relation to the powers of the Government to revoke the patta of the resumed inam lands granted by the Tahsildar Alampur on the application of the plaintiff who was in actual possession of the said lands, Ac. 188-36 guntas in extent, since the death of the last inam holder, Seshamma. Be it noted that these inam lands after her death, as a result of enquiry into her succession were resumed by the Government for failure of any legal heir accept-able to them and were declared khalsa lands.

(3.) To appreciate the points at issue bearing on this question, it is expedient to make a brief statement of facts. Narasavadhani was the original grantee of this 'Khairathi' inam. He had a son Subbayya who married hiss own sister's daughter, Seshamma. Subbayya predeceased Narasavadhani issue-less. On the death of Narasavadhani, the inam devolved on Seshamma, his daughter-in-law on 29th Bahman 1300 F. She remained in enjoyment of this inam land till 11th Isfandar 1323 F. when she died. She too had no issue. There arose two claimants in the succession proceedings to the inam. Jagannadham set up his claim as her adapted son and plaintiff claimed as the adopted son of Narasavadhani. The claim of Jagannadham could not Ire entertained as the indmdara had not obtained previous sanction for his adoption in accordance with the rules then in force. Narasayya had no blood relationship with the inamdars. He claimed to be the adopted son of her mother. The inam authorities in their enquiry into succession were not concerned with a person other than a direct heir to the land-holder. Both the claimants therefore had no acceptable basis for their claim to the inam. In these circumstances, the Tahsildar proposed for resumption of the inam, the Taluqdar agreed with it and the Subedar sanctioned the same on 17th Dai 1326 F. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, on the petition by the plaintiff, the Subedar provisionally sanctioned the Virasat on 18-3-1326 F. on condition that Narasayya should pay half the assessment as he was not the direct heir of Seshamma Sadar Nazim-e-Mal on the appeal of Jagannadham, reversed this order and directed resumption of the inam. This eventually was confirmed by Bab-e. Hukummat on 22-6-1333 F. The inam land thus became khalsa land. Having failed in his claim to inam, the plaintiff then applied to the Tahsildar for the grant of patta of these inam lands as they were already in his possession. The Tahsildar granted the same on 15th Farwardi 1334 F. on the ground that he was not only in long possession but also was related to the last inamdar by virtue of his adoption to her father. No appeal was preferred against this order. About two years thereafter one Sivaramayya, patwari of the village by his application dated 10th Meher 1336 F. brought to the notice of the highest revenue authority that Tahsildar had committed serious irregularity in granting on mere application patta to the plaintiff-trespasser whose claim as heir was already rejected by Bab-e-Hukummat. He averred that the patta could not have been lawfully granted without putting to auction the right of occupancy and that the failure to comply with this procedure had resulted in considerable loss to the Government. Upon this application, the enquiry was started. Taluqdar called for a report from the Tahsildar on 27th Azur 1337 F. On receipt of the report he found that the procedure adopted was irregular. He expressed his view in his letter dated 23rd Meher 1337 F. addressed to Sadar Nazim that since no direct heir to the 1st holder of the inam had been ascertained, the lands ought to have been auctioned. The Government agreed with this and accordingly an order for auction of the occupancy rights was made. This was communicated to the Tahsildar by the Taluqdar under his letter dated 20th Isfandar 1331 F. The plaintiff at once called in question the said order. His appal in that behalf failed. His review petition thereafter before the Revenue Minister was also rejected. Then the auction was held. The 2nd defendant become the auction purchaser therein on 31-6-1340 F. He was granted patta of the lands. The plaintiff was eventually dispossessed. Having failed thus in all his attempts the plaintiff resorted to the civil remedy after obtaining due sanction from the Government for the institution of the suit as required by the then lawn The suit as originally brought by him was only against the Government and the 2nd defendant. Further it was merely for declaration of right and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, however, 3rd defendant as transferee of the lands was brought on record and a prayer for possession was also added by amendment of the plaint.