Mohd. Abdul Khader And Others Petitioners v. 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.

2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioners filed a suit under Section 9 of the 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, 1950 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 Section 99 of the 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.

3. Shri Ahmedpurkar for the respondents argued that no revision lies. At the same time, he admits that this Court can exercise powers ??? Article 227 of the Constitution. His contention that under R. 35 of the Rules promulgated ??? the Tribal Areas Regulation an appeal lies from original decision of the Assistant Agent to the Age and therefore, the remedy of appeal was open the petitioners. We are unable to agree with the contention. Rule 35 has got to be read with to other provisions of law. Part III of the ??? deals with the administration of civil justice by Tribal Area Officers. Rule 26 lays down that. Agent, Assistant Agent and Panchayat authorise, under the Rules shall be subordinate to the High Court and they shall exercise powers in civil case. It is clear that the High Court has and can exercise revisional powers in cases decided by those tribunals. Under Section 115 of the CPC, 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 Section 115 of the CPC can be exercised. We, ??? overrule the contention of the learned ???. It is clear from the judgment of the Agent he thinks that Section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act bar to the hearing of the case on the civil Section 99 operates as a bar to the jurisdiction the civil Court only if the case is of such a ??? as is required to be settled by the Tahsildar, ??? or the Collector or other authorities ???, therein. It is clear that a suit under Section 9, ??? of the Relief Act is outside the purview of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Therefore, Section 99 of the Tenancy Act has no application and the civil suit is not ???. 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 Assist ant Agent to decide the case on the civil side. The costs of this revision petition will follow the result.

M.R.G

4. Revision allowed.