SH. LOKRAJ AND ORS.versusKISHAN LAL AND ORS.

                        SH. LOKRAJ AND ORS.                                       A
                                 v.
                        KISHAN LAL AND ORS.

                            JANUARY 11, 1995

    [K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]                                B

      Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 as
amended in 1967-Section 3-Abolition and vesting of Inams lands-Suit for
partitiott-Whether maintainable, after estate was abolishecJ-Held, No.
                                                                                  c
      Plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition of the plaint schedule proper-
ties and for 1/6th share therein. The properties were found to be loam
lands as per the finding of the High Court. However, the division bench
held that the suit for partition was maintainable even though lnam had
been abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955, and the lands stood vested in the State. Hence this appeal.      D
The respondent plaintiff contended that the right to claim partition had
not been lost, though loam bad been abolished.

      The question raised, therefore, was whether the civil suit for parti-
tion was maintainable, after the estate was abolished.                            E
      Allowing the appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1.1. The Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of
loams Act, 1955, a complete Code, abolished the loam, vested the land in
the government and conferred rights on the persons in occupation F
enumerated, subject to the right of appeal. The Act abolished existing rights
and created new rights. Consequent to the abolition the pre-existing right,
title and interest of the lnamdar or any person having occupation of the
loam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until regrant
was made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest G
in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory
operation unless regrant is made. Therefore, the civil suit for the partition
was not maintainable, after the estate was abolished. [195-G-H, 196-A-BJ

      B.P. Narain Singh v. S. Mukherjee, [1971] 3 SCR 639; S.P. Shah v.
B.N. Singh, [1969] 3 SCR 908; Chayanna v. K. Nannayana, [1979] 3 SCC              H
                                  193
    194                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A 42 and Chenclmlakshamma v. Subramanya Reddy, (1980] 1 SCR 1006,
    relied on.
                                                                                      ~·
          Sheetal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff, (1984) 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter
    406; Affirmed.

B        Govind Reddy v. Lakshminarayan Reddy, (1959) 1 Andhra Weekly
    Reporter; K Babgonda Patil v. B.K Patil, (1989] Supp. 1 SCC 246 and S. T.
    Karaban v. P.H. Karaban, (1994) 4 SCALE 750, distinguished.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1400 of
    1986.
c
         From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in C.R.P. No. 1215of1977.

            S.R. Setia for the Appellants.

D        K. Madhava Reddy, S.V. Deshpande and Pramit Saxena for the
    Respondent Nos. 1-4.

            K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent Nos. 7-9.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
           This appeal by special leave arises from the division bench judgment
    dated January 22, 1986 made in CRP No. 1215/77 of the High Court of
    Andhra Pradesh. The respondent-plaintiff laid the suit - O.S. No. 59 of
    1968 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for
    partition of the plaint schedule properties and for l/6th share therein. We
F   are concerned in this appeal with the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule
    of the plaint. It consists of 8 items, of which item 5 relates to lands bearing
    Survey Nos. 174, 175, 179, 193 and 205 admeasuring 20 acres 21 gunthas
    situated in Attapur village. The said land was acquired by the government
    to establish Zoo. The compensation was determined in O.P. No. 35/63 by
G   the First Addi. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The rest of the proper-
    ties are now found to be Inam lands as per the finding of the High Court:

              "Thus, there does not appear to be any controversy between the
              parties on the question whether the plaint 'B' schedule properties
              are loam lands or not. Therefore, it becomes an admitted fact that
H             the plaiti.t B schedule lands are loam lands.".
                                  LOK RAJ v. KISHAN LAL                            195

                On those admitted facts, the Division Bench proceeded to consider A
          whether the suit for partition is maintainable. Section 3 of the Andhra
          Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, as amended in
          1967, (for short 'the Act') deals with the abolition and vesting of the lnam
          Lands. Section 3(1) is relevant, which reads thus :

                                                                                          B
                  "Abolition and vesting of inams and the consequences thereof :

--                (1) Notwithstanding to the contrary contained in any usage, settle-
                  ment, contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument, Act,
                  regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstand-
                  ing any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat
                  Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all inams to which     C
                  this Act is made applicable under Sub-s.(2) of s. 1 of this Act shall
                  be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State".

                 Therefore, notwithstanding any contra usage, settlement etc.
          enumerates s.3(1), on and from the date of the Act the inams were D
          abolished and inam lands stood vested in the State. Section 3 expressly
          saves certain properties from the vesting as enumerated in clauses (a) to
          (i) of the sub-s.(2) thereof, with which we are not presently concerned.
          Section 4 gives right to registration by the Inamdar as occupant. As per
          this Section, every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be
          entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than the E
          lands enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) therein. Sections 6 to 8 deal with
          registration of permanent tenants as occupants, either protected tenants or
          non-protected tenants etc. Section 5 deals with registration of Kabiz-a-
          kadim tenants as occupant. Section 9 deals with vesting of certain buildings
          and inam lands used for non-agricultural purposes. Section 10 creates p
     ·~
          forum for determination of the entitlements in ss.4 to 9. Section 11 saves
          certain rights created under the Act before the date of vesting as inamdars.
          Section 23 deals with constitution of Special Tribunals and their power to
          deal with the question arose therein. Section 24 gives right of appeal
          against the order passed by the authorities constituted under s. 10 to
          determined questions enumerated in ss.4 to 9. Thus the Act is a complete G
          Code, abolished the loam, vested the land in the government and conferred
          rights on the persons in occupation enumerated, subject to the right of
          appeal and the decision thereon. The Act abolished existing rights and
          created new rights. Created forum to determine the rights and liabilities
          arising therefrom. The question, therefore, is whether the civil suit for H
    196                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A   partition is maintainable, after the estate was abolished.

          Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right, title and interest
    of the Inamdar or any person having occupation of the Inam lands stood
    divested· and vested the same in the State until regrant is made. The
    inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land.
B   The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory operation
    unless regrant is made. We are not concerned with the cons~quences that
    would ensure after regrant of this appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for
    us to go into the question that may arise after the regrant.

C        In B.P. Narain Singh v. S. Mukherjee, [1971) 3 SCR 639, this Court
  held that after the estate was abolished under Bihar Land Reforms Act,
  1950, the decree for partition stood abated as the lands stood vested with
  all assets in the State of Bihar. This Court pointed out that the object of
  the Act was to cause transference to the State of the interest of the
D proprietors and tenure-holders in land as also of the mortgagees and
  lessees of such interests including interest in the lands etc. etc. Though the
  plaintiffs therein had a share in the lands as a ryat after the regrant, but
  they had lost the right as a tenure-holder or proprietor. In S.P. Shah v.
  B.N. Singh, [1969] 3 SCR 908, this Court held that after the estate is
  abolished, the rights created under s.6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act has
E to be worked out in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In Chayanna
  v. K Nannayana, [1979) 3 SCC 42 and Chenchulakshamma v. Subramanya
  Reddy, [1980) 1 SCR 1006, this Court held that after the abolition of the
  estate and vesting of the land in the State, while the new rights were created
  under the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the pre-ex-
F isting rights. The parties have to work out the rights under the Act before
  the forums created thereunder.

         In Sheetal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff, (1984) 1 Andhra Weekly
  Reporter, 406, a single Judge of the High Court considered the effect of
  the abolition and following the judgments of this Court held that the suit
G is not maintainable. The Division Bench overruled the judgment on the sole
  ground that the ratio in Govind Reddy v.Lakshminarayan Reddy, [1959) 1
  Andhra Weekly Reporter, was not considered, therefore, it was not good
  law. The Division Bench obviously overlooked the fact that under Aliyat
  Act the ultimate jurisdiction for deciding the question has been vested only      •
H in the civil cpurt. Therefore, the division bench in Govind Reddy's case had
                          LOK RAJ v. KISHAN LAL                              197

held that suit for partition was maintainable. But that ratio bears no              A
relevance to the consequence that would ensue under the Act. The division
bench, therefore, was not right in holding that the suit for partition is
maintainable, even though Inam has been abolished under the Act and the
lands stood vested in the State.

        Sri Madhav Reddy, the learned senior counsel, placing reliance on           B
 K Babgonda Patil v. B.K Patil, [1989] Supp (1) SCC 246 and S.T. Karaban
 v. P.H.Karaban, (1994) 4 Scale 750, contended that the right to claim
 partition has not been lost, though Inam has been abolished. We find no
 force in the contention. Therein, after abolition of the W atan regrants were
 made in favour of Watandars. In view of the pre-existing watans burdened           C
 with service of watandar as pre-existing law, excluded the junior members
 of the family to claim partition, was abolished and regrant was made to the
 watandar, after the regrant the property became the joint family property.
 So the coparceners of the Hindu joint family were held entitled to lay the
-suit for partition and civil court has jurisdiction to grant decree of partition
 by metes and bounds pro-rata. That ratio has no application to the facts           D
 of this case. When regrant is made and in what capacity the regrant would
be made is a matter to be considered and decided in terms of the regrant.

       The appeal is accordingly allowed in respect of all the items except
item 5 of the 'B' schedule. The suit stands dismissed. With respect to item         E
5, the civil court ~ould proceed for deciding the controversy relating to the
compensation awarded by the civil court between the parties in terms of
shares to which parties are entitled to. In the fact and circumstances of the
case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.

AG                                                            Appeal allowed.