SYED QAMAR HASAN,J. - (1.)This is a revision petition under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 calling in question the Judgment and order of the Collector, Hyderabad District, upholding the decision of the Deputy Collector declaring the respondents to be protected tenants and ordering them to be reinstated in possession of the suit land under Section 32 of the said Act.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents put in an application before the Tenancy Commission seeking a declaration under Section 34 as to their status of being permanent tenants and also for possession under Section 32 of the Act on the allegation of dispossession. The Tenancy Commission, in the first instance, decided in favour of the respondents but on an appeal being taken by the appellant to the Collector, the case was remanded for further inquiry. Before the Tenancy Commission could take up the inquiry, its tenure of existence terminated, and having regard to Rule 24 (c) of the Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Rules the whole proceeding was transferred to the Deputy Collector. After recording the evidence of three witnesses and making a local inspection, the Deputy Collector found against the petitioner. The petitioner again went up in appeal to the Collector. The finding of the Collector may with advantage be quoted in extenso from his order under revision before me.
"There is, however, no gainsaying the fact that there is scarcely any documentary evidence in support of the respondents. But the oral evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour. Normally, greater reliance is called for on documentary evidence than on oral evidence. But in this case, I am of the firm view that the oral evidence should be relied upon and believed, even though the documentary evidence is against the Respondents. The respondents are very ignorant peasants who had been peacefully cultivating the suit lands till 1953-54 when they were dispossessed, without bothering to verify whether their names were correctly entered in the revenue records."

(3.)The above quotation discloses a deplorable want of legal acumen in the Collector. The Collectors should knot, that they are they final courts of appeal. Whenever they agree or disagree with the orders of their subordinates or in matters which are likely to go up in revision to the High Court, they should discuss the evidence and give reasons for believing or disbelieving the witnesses. It is not sufficient to express concurrence with the appreciation of evidence made by the Tahsildar or any other competent body. I need not elaborate this point since in my view the Collector missed the real point to be decided in this case. As has been held in Nunua Paplah v. Alram Veerayya, S.A. 156 of 1954 and C.R.P. 402 of 1954, Dated 28.2.1958. the Tenancy Commission was not a creature of the Act but owes its existence to certain rules framed under the Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act. The rules creating such; a Commission were ultra vires the rule-making power ; therefore, whatever decision may be given by such a body can have no binding force between the parties. The jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector can be traced to Rule 24 (c) referred to above. That Rule is also ultra viress in my view, because it creates a jurisdiction, which was never contemplated by the parent Act itself. In this view of the matter, I hold that the proceedings taken before the Deputy Collector were null and void and cannot be allowed to stand.