TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms government's abkari rights in inam lands abolition, upholds legislative competence.</h1> The Supreme Court affirmed that abkari rights vested in the Government with the inam lands' abolition. Compensation under the Abolition Act included these ... - Issues Involved:1. Abolition of abkari rights under the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955.2. Entitlement to compensation for abkari rights.3. Legislative competence of the Hyderabad Legislature to enact the Abolition Act.4. Constitutionality of the Abolition Act under Article 31(2) and Article 31A of the Constitution.5. Revival of the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955, after the striking down of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1967.Detailed Analysis:1. Abolition of Abkari Rights:The appellant contended that the abkari rights (rights related to the sale of Sendhi, tree tax, and Haque Malikana) were not abolished when the inams were abolished under the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The respondent argued that all rights, including abkari rights, vested in the Government upon the abolition of the inams. The trial court and the High Court held that abkari rights were included within the term 'inam' and thus vested in the Government. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the right to tap or derive benefits from trees standing on the land is appurtenant to the land and thus vested in the Government along with the inam lands.2. Entitlement to Compensation:The appellant argued that the compensation provided under the Abolition Act did not account for the abkari rights and thus was invalid. The respondent countered that compensation was payable for the inam as a whole, not separately for each right. The Supreme Court held that the compensation under Section 12 of the Abolition Act was inclusive of abkari rights. The Court noted that the scheme of compensation under the Act was intended to provide for agrarian reforms and could not be challenged as inadequate.3. Legislative Competence:The appellant questioned the legislative competence of the Hyderabad Legislature to enact the Abolition Act, arguing that it conflicted with the provisions of Article 31(2) and was not an agrarian reform protected under Article 31A. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in B. Shankara Rao Badani & Ors. v. State of Mysore, which upheld similar legislation as part of agrarian reforms. The Court held that the Abolition Act was within the legislative competence of the Hyderabad Legislature and was protected under Article 31A.4. Constitutionality under Article 31(2) and Article 31A:The appellant argued that the Abolition Act took away property without providing adequate compensation, violating Article 31(2). The Supreme Court held that the Abolition Act was a law providing for the acquisition of estates or rights therein, thus protected under Article 31A. The Court noted that the compensation scheme under the Act was intended to effect agrarian reforms and could not be challenged on the grounds of inadequacy.5. Revival of the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955:The appellant contended that the striking down of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1967, did not revive the Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955, which had been repealed. The Supreme Court held that the striking down of Act 9 of 1967 implied that the earlier Acts (Act 8 of 1955 and Act 10 of 1956) remained in force. The Court reasoned that the High Court's decision to strike down Act 9 of 1967 was based on the premise that the inams had already vested in the Government under the earlier Acts, and compensation had to be paid accordingly.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the abkari rights vested in the Government along with the inam lands upon the abolition of the inams. The compensation provided under the Abolition Act was inclusive of these rights and was constitutionally valid. The Court affirmed the legislative competence of the Hyderabad Legislature to enact the Abolition Act and upheld its constitutionality under Articles 31(2) and 31A. The striking down of Act 9 of 1967 did not affect the validity of the earlier Acts, which remained in force.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
