KUMARAYYA,J. - (1.)This petition is under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1950 and is directed against the order of the Collector, Warangal District, dated 8th March 1956. The proceedings before the Collector were started at the instance of the Tahsildar, Narasapet, who sought for the directions of the District Collector in relation to the rectification of the tenancy records and objections raised regarding the quantum of rent. It is necessary to make a brief statement of facts in order to appreciate the implications of the order in revision passed by the Collector.
(2.)Banjipet was an ijara village. It was over under Government control in the year 1325-F. as the revenue due had fallen in arrears. It continued to be under the control of the Government till 1358-F. during which period the lands were leased to the ryots for cultivation on Pondubattu system. Notwithstanding the release from Government control in 1358-F. the Pondubatu system was continued till 1950. When the tenancy records of the village were being prepared certain discrepancies were found as a result of which special orders were issued from the Collector to get the omissions rectified through the Taluqa Commissioner. The landlord raised an objection regarding the quantum of rent that was entered in the register. On this the Tahsildar of Narsapet sought guidance of the District Officer. The Tahsildar, Narsapet, was directed to compare the Pondubatu rents paid by the tenants during the Pondubatu arrangements with those paid by the occupants of the lands in other comparable contiguous areas. The Tahsildar then submitted a report that in the adjacent ijara village of Mahammadpur and Rakampalli the rents were four time and three times the land revenue. The Collector, after receipt of this report, entered into a spot enquiry in Bhanjipet village and arrived at the conclusion that the rent worked out to a flat rate of Re. 0-8-0 above the assessment for all classes of soils. The parties would not agree to it. The ijaradar made a request that the rental may be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and that the average rentals for each class of comparable lands in the surrounding areas may be taken into consideration. The ryots had objected to the enhancement of rents. The Collector thereupon seems to have suggested to both the parties that in order to avoid protracted proceedings in respect of the holding of each land under section 17 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, both sides should come to an agreement in relation to the rents for dry and wet lands. The order of the Collector shows, though the petitioner denies, that in consequence of this direction there was an agreement between the parties and different rates were fixed for dry and wet land; that the ijaradar had agreed that all ryots were entitled to shikmidari rights under section 67 of the Land Revenue Act and they could be recorded likewise in the regular register. As the collector was not competent to act as original authority under section 17 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, he directed that the proceedings before him be remanded for finalisation on the specified terms mentioned therein arrived at by the parties. He also gave certain directions to the Tahsildar for the completion of the tenancy and shikmidari registers.
(3.)Now so far as this revision is concerned, the challenge lies to the competence of the Collector for starting proceedings and giving directions to the Deputy Collector so that he may exercise his powers under section 17 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act only in accordance with the directions given by him.