JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Revision Petition under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises out of a proceeding
taken under section 32(1) of the Act for restoration of possession of land
bearing S.No. 38. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein. It
appears that the claims of the respective parties were already enquired into and
decided against the petitioners herein by the Tahsildar, by his order dated 25th
November, 1959, in Tahsil File No. 6997/1957/52. In these proceedings again,
the petitioners, who were the respondents in the petition before the Tahsildar claimed
to have purchased the land in question and also that a third party was the protected
tenant. Their objections were overruled and the Tahsildar, by his order dated
3rd December, 1960, directed that they be evicted from the land, S.No. 38 to the
extent of one Kanakamma's share of the land and that possession of the land be
restored to K. Ramaswamy. Then, the Tahsildar proceeded to order that the
respondents before him, i.e., the petitioners in this revision petition, are also fined
Rs. 200 under section 96 of the Act for repeatedly interfering with the plaintiff's
possession of the land and depriving him of the crop. There was an appeal before
the Collector, Warangal. First, with regard to the order of eviction passed by the
Tahsildar, the Collector upheld the same having regard to the prior order dated
25th November, 1959, passed by the Tahsildar in Tahsil File No. 6997/1957/52.
Then, it was next argued before the Collector that the Tahsildar had no powers to
impose the fine under section 96 of the Act; but the Collector rejected this argument
also on the ground that, under section 96 of the Act, the fines indicated in column 3
of the table to sub-section (1) may be imposed. The Collector further observed
that though section 96 or section 96-A did not indicate the authority empowered
to impose the penalties covered by section 96 (1) of the Act, the legal presumption
is that, the authorities empowered to pass orders under the section or sub-sections
mentioned in column (1) of the table under section 96 (1) will be empowered to
impose the penalties indicated in column 3 of the said table. In this view, the
imposition of fine by Tahsildar also was confirmed. Against the said order, this
revision petition is filed questioning the validity of the imposition of fine by the
Tahsildar under section 96 of the Act.
(2.)The argument of Mr. Raghuvir, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is
that, sections 96 and 96-A only specify the offences and the punishments that may
be imposed therefor, but do not authorise the revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar
or the Deputy Collector or the Collector while passing orders under the Act to
convict anyone of the 'offences specified in sections 96 and 96-A or to impose the
fines. But the trial of a person for those offences and the imposition of fines prescribed
therein can only be by any Magistrate as prescribed by the last entry in
Schedule II to the Criminal Procedure Code. The said entry provides that, if
an offence against any other law than the Indian Penal Code is punishable with
imprisonment for less than one year or with fine only, it is triable by any Magistrate.
(3.)It is necessary to refer to sections 96 and g6-A of the Act and they are as
follows :
"96. (1) Whoever contravenes any provision of any of the sections or sub-sections mentioned
in the first column of the following table shall, on conviction for such contravention, be punishable
with fine which may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the third column of the said
table.
Explanation.The entries in the second column of the said table headed "Subject" are not
intended to be definitions of the offences described in the sections or sub-sections mentioned in the
first column, or even as abstracts of those sections and sub-sections, but are inserted merely as a reference
to the subject-matter gf the sections or sub-sections, the numbers, of which are given in the first column,
MAH.B154.8125.htm
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, a contravention
of the provisions of section 14 or section 16 shall be a cognizable offence.
96-A. Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act for which no penalty has been otherwise
provided therein shall be punishable with fine not exceeding Rs.500."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.