1. This revision petition by the declarants in C.C No. 1052/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kodangal is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar in I.A No. 416/77 in L.R.A No. (C.F.R) No. 288/1977.

2. The 2nd respondent herein is the Inamdar of the lands in question and has filed C.C No. 3228/75. In his holding the 2nd respondent included an extent of Acs. 16-30 cents of inam lands covered by survey No. 90 of Nandaram village in Kodangal taluk, Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be registered as ‘occupant’ in respect of half of this land on, the ground that he is a ‘Kabiz-e-kadim’ or as a tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954. The 2nd respondent was declared to be holding 0.4000 and odd standard holdings in excess of the ceiling area to which he was entitled and he was asked to surrender the excess. The petitioner's declaration is still pending adjudication. While so, the 2nd respondent purported to surrender Acs. 16-30 cents of land covered by S. No. 90. That order was passed without notice to the petitioner who has himself declared this land as part of his holding. The land Reforms Tribunal, Kodangal by its order dated December, 1976 in C.C No. 3228/1975 purported to accept the surrender of other lands including Acs. 16-30 cents of land covered by S. No. 90 of Nandaram village and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayankhed to take possession of these lands under Sec. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. As this order would result in dispossessing the petitioner who claims to hold the land and who also claims to be entitled as Kabiz-e-Kadim, he sought to prefer an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar. As he was not eo-nominee a party, he filed an application purporting to be under Rule 16(7) of the Act for permission to file an appeal on the ground that the lands held by him are sought to be surrendered by the 2nd respondent and the Tribunal proceeded to accept the surrender without notice to him. The land Reforms. Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no basis for treating him as a party-interested land accordingly refused permission to the petitioner to file an appeal against the acceptance of the surrender of the lands by the 2nd respondent. This revision petition is directed against that order. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has wholly misunderstood the scope of the enquiry under section 61 of the Act and the circumstances in which the surrender of any land could be accepted. The claim of the petitioner was that land bearing survey No. 90 of an extent of Acs. 16-30 cents of Nandaram Village being an inam land, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (Act VIII of 1955) apply and that he being a person answering the description of Kabiz-e-Kadim was entitled to be registered as an occupant 4 Under Sec. 3(1) of the Inams Abolition Act the inams stand abolished and vest in the State with effect from the date of vesting.

3. Section 3(1), reads as follows:—

“3(1) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any usage settlement, contract, grant sanad, order or other instrument. Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with, effect from the date of vesting, all inams to which this Act is made applicable under Sub-Section (2) of Sec. I of this Act shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State”.

4. The date of vesting is defined in section 2(1)(b) as follows:

“2(1)(b) the expression ‘date of vesting’ when used-

(i) in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) with reference to clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and sub-section (3) of sec. 3 and in sec. 34, means the date of publication of this Act in the official Gazette.

(ii) elsewhere in this Act means the date appointed by the Government under Clause (b) of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. I”.

5. This section itself was substituted by Andhra Pradesh Act X/1956 and the same was published in the Gazette on 20-4-1956. The date of vesting under Sec. 3(1) is therefore 20-4-1956. Though Sections 2 and 3, except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) thereof and certain others sections came into force by virtue of sections 2(3) on 20-7-1955 when the Act was published in the Official Gazette, the inams covered by this Act stood abolished and vested in the Government only by virtue of section 3(1) on 20-4-1956. In view of section 2(3)(b), the rest of the provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this behalf. These other provisions came to be enforced by way of a notification G.O.Ms No. 947, Rev. (G) dated 20-10-1973 with effect from 1-11-1973. Under the provisions of this Act, certain inamdars are entitled to be registered as occupants of inam lands other than those mentioned in clauses (a)(b) and (c) of sec. 4(1) and shall be subject to the liabilities mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof and subject to the other conditions mentioned in sub-secs. (3) and (4) of section 4. Persons claiming to be entitled to be registered as occupants on the ground that they are kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants or non-protected tenants may be so registered subject to the conditions contained in Secs. 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively. In regard to the claims of the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, the Collector is constituted as the authority to make an enquiry and decide “(a) in whose favour or in respect of which inam lands, the claim should be allowed and (b) the land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands.” Under Sec. II certain rights are declared enforceable by or against the Government. Certain amount of compensation also is payable to the inamdar kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant for inam lands in their possession and taken over by the Government in accordance with the provisions of that Act. There is also provision in Secs. 12 and 14 for interim payment and for apportionment of the compensation. The Government is empowered under Sec. 23 to constitute special Tribunals for the purpose of the Act which are vested with the same powers as to summoning and attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents as a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under Section 10 is given the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority. The Collector is constituted as the prescribed authority under section 24 of the Act. The Collector is also empowered to refer the application of any person interested relating to apportionment of compensation for the decision of the Special Tribunal. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Collector with respect to the compensation or apportionment thereon is given a right of appeal to the Special Tribunal under section 26. An appeal to the High Court is also provided against an order made by the Collector under Sub-Section (1) of Section 18 or against the decision of the Special Tribunal under Sections 25 and 26. The High Court is also vested with the re visional jurisdiction under section 28 against the proceedings taken and orders hade by the Collector and the Special Tribunal under the Act.

6. The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act is thus a complete Code in itself. It abolishes the inams and vests the same in the Government and creates special rights in favour, of the inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non protected tenants in respect of which the claims, are to be decided by the special authorities and Tribunals constituted under the Act. Section 29 of the said Act declares as follows:—

“Save or otherwise provided in this Act, no order passed by the Collector or by the Special Tribunal under that Act shall be liable to be cancelled or modified except by the High Court as aforesaid or be questioned in any Court of law.”

7. That being the position, the claim of the petitioner that he being a Kabiz-e-Kadim is entitled to be registered as an occupant under the Act can be investigated and decided by the Collector alone subject to the final decision of the High Court under Sec. 28 of the Act. Any decision rendered by the authorities constituted under that Act cannot be called in question by another authority. In the instant case, such a decision has not, been arrived at under the said Act. The claim of the petitioner is still pending before the Collector in this regard. The petitioner claims to be actually in possession of the land. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, such lands as are held by a person as owner as defined under sec. 3(i) of the Act have to be included in his holding. ‘Owner’ has been defined in section 3(n) of the Act as follows:—

“Owner” includes a person by whom or in whose favour a trust is created and in the case of any land not held under ryotwari settlement, a person who is or would be entitled to the grant of a ryotwari patta or to the registration as an occupant in respect of such land under any law for the time being in force providing for the conversion of such land into ryotwari tenure, and where there is no such law, any person holding such land immediately, before the specified date otherwise than in any one of the capacities in items (ii) to (v) of clause (i); but does not include a limited owner”.

8. In view of the above definition in respect of an inam land which is a land not held under any ryotwari settlement, a person entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land would be deemed to be the owner. In the preent case, while the inamdar claims to be registered as an occupant and claims to be holding the land and has included this land in his declaration CC. No. 3228/75, the petitioner who claims to be a Kabiz-e-Kadim also claims to be entitled to be registered as an occupant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and has also included the very same land in his holding and filed the declaration in CC. No. 1052/75 which is still pending investigation. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the petitioner was not a person-interested. If, as claimed by the petitioner, he was entitled to be registered as an occupant of this inam land which stands abolished under the provisions of the said Act which has occurred either on 20-4-1956 or on 1-1-1973—which controversy, it is not necessary to decide for the purpose of this case for it has occurred prior to 1-1-1975—the petitioner would be the person holding the land as owner within the meaning of Section 3(i) read with section 3(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. He is, therefore, a person-interested in the land.

9. Further, under section 10(5)(a)(ii) of the Act, notwithstanding anything in Section 10, it shall be open to the Tribunal to refuse to accept the surrender of any land, the surrender of which is not acceptable on account of a dispute as to the title to the land or on account of an encumbrance on the land or on account of the land being in the possession of any person mentioned in hem (v) of clause (i) of Section 3, which includes a person in possession of the land otherwise. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to resist the taking over of the possession of the land surrendered by the 2nd respondent, in fact, before passing any order on the declaration filed by the 2nd respondent in CC. No. 3228/75, inasmuch as the very same land was included in the declaration CC. No. 1052/75 filed by the petitioner i.e, the Land Reforms Tribunal should have given notice to the petitioner. He was a person interested and atso a person entitled to object to the inamdar including this land in his holding. Although, both the declarations were before the same Tribunal, it did not take note of this fact and failed to hear all the parties interested. A far more serious objection, however, is that inasmuch as the land is an inam land covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) inams Abolition Act 1954, the authority competent to decide as to who is entitled to be registered as an occupant, is the Collector under the said Act and not the Tribunal constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. In respect of such lends, the Tribunal would not be competent to hold that either the 2nd Respondent, who is the inamdar or the petitioner who claims to be the kabiz-e-kadim, is entitled to be registered as an occupant. Unless such a decision is given by the competent authority under the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, the land cannot be included either in the holding of the inamdar or in the holding of the petitioner who is a kabiz-e-kadim for before any land is included in the holding of one or the other declarant, it must be determined as to who among them is entitled to be registered as an occupant and as such is an owner holding that land. The jurisdiction to determine this fact having been vested under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act exclusively in the Collector and inasmuch as Section 29 of the Act declares that the decision of that authority subject to the orders of the High Court cannot be called in question by any other authority or even in a Civil Court, the Tribunal constituted under the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act cannot be deemed to be competent to go into that question and for the purpose of disposing of the declarations filed before it, proceed to arbitrarily include the land in the holding of the inamdar or the persons claiming to kabiz-e-kedim, permanent tenants, protected tenants, or non-protected tenants, or in the holdings of both of them Such inclusion would be wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction. In such cases, the only course open to the Tribunals constituted under the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act would be to await the decisions of the competent authorities constituted under the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and give time to the petitioners to file their claims before that authority and await their decisions. When a person claims that he is entitled to be registered as an occupant and the authorities constituted under the Abolition of Inams Act have not decided that question, the Tribunals, under the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act themselves would have no jurisdiction either to hold that the inamdar is entitled to be registered as an occupant or that the petitioner who claims to be kabiz-e-kadim is entitled to be registered as an occupant. The Tribunals, would have to await the decision of the authorities constituted under the Inams Abolition Act. The petitioner thus being a party-interested, was entitled to a notice before the Land Reforms Tribunal. As the land claimed to be in his possession is sought to be surrendered by the 2nd respondent and taken over by the Government, he was a party aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in December 1976. Section 20(3) of the Land Reforms Act does not restrict the right of appeal to any person who was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. All that it declares is that an appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Tribunal or the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the order, and the Appellate Tribunal shall pass such orders on the appeal as it deems fit and such order shall subject to revision under Section 21, be final. A person who is entitled to a notice even while the proceedings were pending before the Original Tribunal and whose lands are sought to be taken over by way of a surrender by any other person, is certainly a person-interested and a party aggrieved and is entitled to prefer an appeal. If at all, permission was necessary, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have granted permission to prefer an appeal. However, it must be pointed out that Rule 16(7) does not in terms apply to such a case. Rule 16(7) is as follows:—

“Any person, other than a party who satisfies the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal that he has substantial interest in the matter, may at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, be permitted to appear and be heard and to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses.”

10. This pre-supposes the pendency of some proceedings before a Tribunal and does not contemplate an application for permission to prefer an appeal. A petition seeking permission to prefer an appeal, was, however, not necessary in this case. The petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal shall, therefore, entertain the appeal and dispose of the claim of the petitioner in the light of this judgment.

11. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.