Case: State Of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Abaji A Anr

3. The contention on behalf of the State was that when the 1955 Act came into existence on 20 July, 1955 inams were abolished and the land vested in the State, and, therefore, the relationship between the inamdar landlord and the tenant in respect of the inam land ceased. The contention on behalf of the inamdar 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 preserving the relationship between inamdar landlord and tenant. The High Court upheld the contention of the inamdar landlord and the tenant.

Reasoning:
8. Among these clauses, CL (b) which came into effect on 20 July, 1955 saved from vesting into the State the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act. As to what interests were saved or protected from being vested in the State would be found in Section 33 of the 1955 Act and clauses (b), (d), (g), (h) and (i) of Section 3 (2) of the 1955 Act9. Section 33 therefore provided first that the application of the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to any inam was not to be affected by the 1955 Act save in so far as the said provisions were inconsistent with the provisions of the said 1955 Act. Second1y Section 33 saved the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar and his tenant. It would, therefore follow that the combined effect of Clause (b) of Section 3 (2) and of Section 33 the 1955 Act is that the mutual rights and obligations of the inamdar and the tenant were not affected by the 1955 Act10. The right and obligations of the inamdar would be inter alia to receive rent and land revenue. The rights of the tenant on the other hand would be primarily to continue in possession of the land and to enjoy its income subject to liability to pay rent and deliver possession to the inamdar in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 m so far as the same were applicable11. Clauses (d), (g). (h) and (i) of Section 3 (2) of the 1955 Act did not come into effect on 20 July, 1955. Those clauses came into effect only on 1 July, 1960. These dames dealt with some of the mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and tenants which were preserved until 1 July. 196012. Clause (d) deals with rent and land revenue including cesses and royalties in respect of inam lands on or after the date of vesting to be payable to the State and not to the inamdar. In view of the fact that the clause was not brought into operation Until 1 July, 1960 rent in respect of inam land was not payable to the state on or after the date of vesting namely. 20 July, 1955 until the coming into effect at Clauses (d),(g),(h) and (i) on 1 July, 196013. Clause (h)) dealt with extinction of relationship as between landlord and, permanent tenant protected tenant or now protected tenant with regard to inam land.m permanent tenant protected tenant andd tenant are all defined in Section 2 of the Act. Broadly stated they are all different categories of tenant. In view of the fact that Clause (d) did not come into effect on 20 July, 1955 it follows that the legislative intention was that the relationship between inamdar and tenant with regard to inam land would continue and be not extinguished until the provision was made applicable on 1 July, 196014. Clause (i) provided that with effect from the date of vesting rights and privileges which might have accrued to any person in inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar would cease and would not be enforceable against the Government or the inamdar. Clause (i) did not come into effect until 1 July, 1960 and is another illustration of the saving of mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant15. It therefore follows that though inams were abolished and the land vested in the State by reason of Section 3 Ill of the 1955 Act the rights and interests of landlord and tenants mentioned in Section 3 (2) (b) of the 1955 Act were preserved by Section 33 of the 1955 Act inasmuch as Section 3 (2), Clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of the 1955 Act did not come into effect until 1 July, 196019. It may also be noticed here that although the scheme of the 1955 Act was to abolish the inams and to vest the land in the State, there was no provision in the Act empowering the Government to resume possession. The relationship between inamdar and his tenant came to an end on 1 July, 1960 when the State by reason of the coming into force of Sections 4 to 8 of the 1955 Act granted occupancy rights to persons mentioned in those sections22. The High Court was right in both the orders. The crucial date for grant of occupancy rights under the 1955 Act is 1 July, 1960 when the entire 1955 Act including in particular the provisions regarding grant of occupancy rights and Clauses (d), (g) (h) and (i) of Section 3 (2) of the 1955 Act came into effect. The Government became entitled to the possession of the land. The Government became entitled to grant of occupancy rights. The relationship between landlord and tenant ceased on 1 July, 1960. If any tenant had surrendered possession prior to 1 July, 1960 as happened in Civil Appeal No. 2533 of 1965 and the inamdar accepted such surrender and remained in possession of the land on the relevant date 1 July 1960 the inamdar would be entitled to grant of occupancy rights. On the other, hand, if the tenant claimed to be in possession of the land as in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 1966 on the relevant date 1 July, 1960 and the inamdar also claimed to be in possession, the Government will have to ascertain as to who was lawfully in possession on the material date 1 July, 196023. The Bombay High Court in Dattatraya Sadashiv Dhond v. Ganpati Raghu Gaoli(1965) 67 Bom LR 521, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant continued upto 1 July, 1960. We are in agreement with the decision on that point.