Mohd. Abdul Khader and others vs Sedam Asru and others

Palnitkar, C.J.—This is a revision petition against the order of the Asst. Agent appointed under the Tribal Areas Regulation. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioners filed a suit under S. 9, Specific Relief Act for the recovery of possession alleging that they were dispossessed without consent, forcibly and otherwise than in due course of law. The case was originally instituted in the Sub-Judge''s Court at Adilabad. Some evidence was recorded after which the Tribal Areas Regulation, 1930 came into force. The case was transferred to the Court of the Assistant Agent, Tribal Areas. The Assistant Agent by judgment under revision decided that the case was barred by the operation of S. 99, Tenancy Act and, therefore, the Civil Court was not empowered to hear the case. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

Shri Ahmedpurkar for the respondents argued that no revision lies. At the same time, he admits that this Court can exercise powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. His contention that under R. 33 of the Rules promulgated under the Tribal Areas Regulation an appeal lies from the original decision of the Assistant Agent to the Agent and therefore, the remedy of appeal was open to the petitioners. We are unable to agree with his contention. Rule 33 has got to be read with the other provisions of law. Part III of the Rules deals with the administration of civil justice by the Tribal Area Officers. Rule 26 lays down that the Agent, Assistant Agent and Panchayat authorised under the Rules shall be subordinate to the High Court and they shall exercise powers in civil cases. It is clear that the High Court has and can exercise revisional powers in cases decided by those tribunals. Under S. 115, C. P. C., the High Court is entitled to call for the records of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court. The Assistant Agent''s Court being subordinate to this Court, revisional powers under S. 115, C. P. C. can be exercised. We, therefore, overrule the contention of the learned Advocate. It is clear from the judgment of the Agent that he thinks that S. 99, Hyderabad Tenancy Act is a bar to the hearing of the case on the civil side. Section 99 operates as a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil Court only if the case is of such a nature, as is required to be settled by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or the Collector or other authorities named) therein. It is clear that a suit under S. 9, Specific Relief Act is outside the purview of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Therefore, S. 99, Tenancy Act has no application and the civil suit is not barred. The opinion of the lower Court, therefore, that the civil suit is barred is erroneous. We set aside the judgment under revision and direct the Assistant Agent to decide the case on the civil side. The costs of this revision petition will follow the result.