Holding

The proviso to Section 37A(1) does not extinguish the rights of a person already holding a protected tenancy certificate or whose claim is under investigation, and the Deputy Collector acting as the Tribunal suffices for the safeguarding application, so the respondent's protected tenancy certificate remains valid.

Summary

The dispute concerned the right of a respondent (Dadarao) to retain his status as a protected tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, after the 1955 amendment introduced Section 37A. The appellant (Nivrutti) claimed that the amendment extinguished the respondent's rights because he was not a protected tenant at the commencement of the amendment. The Supreme Court examined the proviso to Section 37A(1), which preserves the rights of any person already holding a protected tenancy certificate or whose claim is under investigation, provided an application is made to the appropriate tribunal within six months. The Court held that the Deputy Collector, acting as the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under Section 2(w), was the competent authority for such an application, and no separate application was required. Consequently, the respondent's certificate dated 19‑12‑1956 remained valid and his rights were not extinguished. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the proviso to Section 37A(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 extinguishes the rights of a person who already holds a protected tenancy certificate when the amendment comes into force.
Whether the Deputy Collector, in the absence of a constituted Agricultural Lands Tribunal, qualifies as the 'Tribunal' under the proviso to Section 37A(1) for the purpose of safeguarding the respondent's rights.
Whether a separate application to the Tribunal is required when the respondent's claim is already pending before the Deputy Collector.

Subjects

protected tenancyHyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ActSection 37Atribunaldeputy collectorrights extinguishmentagricultural lands

Judgment

MAROTI AND ORS. A
v.
DEVRAO AND ORS.
r
NOVEMBER 17, 1998

[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

.> Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (As amended by
Amendment Act, 1955) : Sections 8 2(w), 34, 37A (/)-Proviso 87.

Protected tenancy-'Right to claim of-Dispute between original C
appellant and original respondent-Certificate of a proteeted tenant under
Section 34. granted to original . respondent by Deputy Collector on
19.12.1956-Claim of original appellant that he was in possession of land
on 12.3.1956 when Section 37A was inserted in the Act-He obtained a
certificate of protected tenant under Section 37A-Claim made by him that D
rights of respondent stood extinguished under Proviso to Section 3 7A-
Held-Proviso makes it clear that Section 37A(I) shall not affect the rights
of any person who already holds a certificate as a protected tenant or whosi;
rights as a protected tenant under the unamended Act are under investigation
before a competent authority-Where no Tribunal has been constituted under
Section 2(w)(ii) the Deputy Collector or other officer authorised under sub- E
section (4) of Section 87 will be the Tribunal-In the present case since the
claim of the respondent to be a protected tenant was being investigated by
the Deputy Collector who was also the Tribunal for the purposes of the
proviso to Section 37A(/), the High Court has held that a separate application
was not necessa1y and the pursuit by the respondent of the proceedings F
claiming protected tenancy-In these circumstances, can be considered as
also an application to the Tribunal for safeguarding his rfghts under the
proviso to Section 37A-This is entirely because the aulhorily before whom
the application was pending is the same authority as the Tribunal under the
proviso-The same Tribunal has ultimately granted to the respondent the
certificate of protected tenant on 19. /2.56-The rights which are granted G
>- under thLs certificate cwmot be held as extinguished in these circumstances--
The High Court rightly upheld 1he claim of the original respondent.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 54I7of1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.90 of the Bombay High Court H
I
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in W.P. No. 1347of1986.
S.V. Tambwekar for the Appellants.

V.N. Ganpule, S. Biswajit Meitei and S.K. Agnihotri forthe Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
By an earlier judgment & order of this Court dated 11th March 1969 in
Civil Appeal No .306 of 1966 between the original appellant and the original
respond1:nts in the same proceedings, this Court gave the following directions:

"The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding
c stands remanded to the Tahsildar with the direction that he do
determine whether Dadarao continued to remain a protected tenant till
the date on which he claimed to exercise his right to purchase the land
and whether Nivrutti acquired the rights of a protected tenant and if
so, whether he was entitled to exercise the right of purchase the land,
and if both Dadarao and Nivrutti were entitled to purchase the land
D
or any part thereof the extent to which each of them was entitled and
to what extent. The Tribunal will decide the question with the least
practical delay and dispose of the rights and obligations of the parties
a'~cording to law. No order as to costs."

E These directions were given because there was a dispute between the
original appellant Nivrutti and the original respondent Dadarao in respect of
the right to claim protected tenancy under the Hyderabad Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the benefit under Section 38 flowing
therefrom.

p The dispute related to 10 acres and 34 gunthas of land in Survey No.
73, Sutardara in village Pathan Mandwa Taluka Mominabad, District Bhir. The
original r'esponde~t claimed to be a protected tenant in respect of the said
land. He relied upon Revenue entries.in his favour as a protected tenant since
1950-51. He had made an application for correction of revenue entries of
subsequent years. Ultimately, the entries were corrected and a certificate as
G a protected tenant under Section 34 of the said Act was granted by the
Deputy Collector on 19.12.56.

The original appellant claimed to be in possession of the said land on
12.3.56 when Section 37A was introduced in the said Act. He has obtained
a certificate as a protected tenant under Section 37A in respect of 6 acres and
H 16 gunthas of land on 7th of September, 1957. According to the appellant, the
MAROTI AND ORS. v. DEVRAO AND ORS. 3
rights of the respondent are extinguished by virtue of the proviso to Section A
37 A of the said Act.

After remand it has been found that the appellant Nivrutti was in
r possession of the said land on 12.3.56 as a tenant. The respondent Dadarao
is a protected tenant under Section 34. We have to examine whether under
the proviso to Section 37 ~ (I) as it then stood, the rights of the respondent B
as a protected tenant have been extinguished. Section 37A, at the relevant
time, was as follows:
-- .;
"37-A (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this "Act, every
person who at the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 holds as tenant any land C
in respect of which he is not deemed to be a protected tenant under
this Act, shall be deemed to be a protected tenant if the total area of
the land owned by the land-holder including the land under the
cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a family
holding for the local area concerned;
D
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of any
other person who already holds. a protected tenancy certificate in
respect of such land or whose rights as protected tenant are under
investigation before a competent authority, if such other person applies
to the Tribu.nal for safeguarding his rights within a period of six E
months from the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act. 1955"

This Section was introduced by reason of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Land (Amendment) Act .. 1955 which came into force on 12.3.56.
Under the newly added Section 37A(l) a person holding any land as a tenant F
on 12.3 .56 though not deemed to be a protected tenant prior to the said
Amendment Act, shall, on and from 12th of March, 1956 be deemed to be a
protected tenant of the land. The proviso to Section 37 A( I), however, makes
it clear that Section 37A(l) shall not affect the rights of any person who
already holds a certificate as a protected tenant in respect of the said land
or whose rights as a protected tenant under the unamended Act. are under G .
>- investigation before a competent authority. Thus the existirig r'i~fit as a ·
protected tenant and the existing right to be declared a protected tenant is
preserved if such a person applies to the Tribunal for safeguarding his rights
within six months of 12.3.56.

The High Court has come to the conclusion that the right of the H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A respondent whose claim as a protected tenant was under investigation when
Section 37 A came into force, is not extinguished by virtue of the proviso to
Section 37 A(l). The respondents' claim as a protected tenant was during the
relevant period from 12.3 .56 and for six months thereafter, being investigated
before the same Tribunal to which an application for safeguarding his rights
B by such a person is contemplated under the proviso to Section 37A(l). His
application was, in effect an application to safeguard his rights.

'Tribunal' is defined under Section 2(w) of the said Act as "Agricultural
Lands Tribunal" constituted under sub-section (I) of Section 87 for the area
concerned. Where no such Tribunal has been constituted under Section
C 2(w)(ii) the Deputy Collector or other officer authorised under sub-section (4)
of Section 87 will be the "Tribunal". The proviso to Section 37A contemplates
an application to the "Tribunal" so defined. Jn the present case since the
claim of the respondent to be a protected tenant was being investigated by
the Deputy Collector, who was also the Tribunal for the purposes of the
proviso to Section 37A(l), the High Court has held that a separate application
D was noil necessary and the pursuit by the respondent of the proceedings
claiming protected tenancy, in these circumstances, can be considered as also
an application to the Tribunal for safeguarding his rights under the proviso
to Section 37 A. This is entirely because the authority before whom the
application was pending is the same authority as the Tribunal under the
E proviso. The same Tribunal has ultimately granted to the respondent the
certificate of protected tenant on 19.12.56. The rights which are granted under
this certificate cannot be held as extinguished in these circumstances.

It was submitted by the appellant that the Tribunal under the proviso
to Section 37A(l) was the Tahsildar and not the Deputy Collector. Therefore,
p the responde11t does not fulfil the requirements of the proviso to Section 37 A.
The High Court. however, in its impugned judgment has pointed out that the
authority to whom an application is to be made under the proviso to Section
37 A was designated to be the Tahsildar only by Notification of 11.10.56. At
the material time, in the absence of any Notification. Section 2(w)(ii) would
be applicable, as rightly held by the High Court. The Tribunal at the material
G time, was the Deputy Collector.

In tlie premises th~ High Court has rightly upheld the claim of the
original respondent. The appeal is, therefore dismissed. There will, however,
be no order as to costs.

H TN.A. Appeal dismissed.