JUDGMENT- V.K. BARDE, J.:---Heard Shri Naik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Bhapkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1; and Shri Borde, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 is served, but had not filed appearance. 2.The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: Land, Survey No. 128 of Taraf Giram, Beed, is service inam land. Respondent No. 3 is the Inamdar. The land was granted for rendering services at the mosque at Sarangpur. The petitioner has contended that she is in possession of the land since 1970 as a tenant. The Inamdar executed a registered lease deed in her favour on 25-10-1972 and leased the land for a period of 17 years. A complaint was made by the Marathwada Wakf Board to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, on 5-5-1962 that the Inamdar was not rendering services to the mosque and, therefore, the mosque was grossly neglected. It was in bad state of repairs. The land, which is granted to the Inamdar, therefore, be attached by the Government. So, the proceedings were instituted. However, the Wakf Board had communicated wrong survey number of the land and, therefore, the matter remained pending. After ascertaining the correct survey number of the land, the order for attachment of the land was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed on 29-5-1978, and it was further directed that the land be put to auction on yearly basis for cultivation. The present petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Collector, Atiyat, Beed. The Collector held that as per the VII-XII Register, name of Masjid, Sarangpur, Beed, had been entered in the Kabjedar column and the name of Shri Roshan Ali, present respondent No. 3, which was recorded in pencil, had been deleted; and the name of the petitioner was not appearing in the Other Rights Column. He, therefore, held that as Roshan Ali was not occupant of the land as per the revenue record, he had no authority to lease the land to the petitioner Mehmooda Begum. So, Mehmooda Begum has not acquired any tenancy rights over the land and she cannot be given protection of the circular dated 9-8-1955. He, therefore, turned down the appeal. Mehmooda Begum then filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. So, Mehmooda Begum has not acquired any tenancy rights over the land and she cannot be given protection of the circular dated 9-8-1955. He, therefore, turned down the appeal. Mehmooda Begum then filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, held that the Collector had treated the appeal as under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; and not as an appeal under the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (hereinafter, respectively referred to as "the Code" and "the said Act"). He further held that the findings recorded by the Collector were correct. The lease created by the so-called Inamdar was not legal and valid. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The present petitioner then filed a revision before the State Government. The Officer on Special Duty heard the revision and he came to the conclusion that the land was the service inam land. Under section 6 of the said Act, the Inamdar had no authority to transfer the land. So, the lease deed in favour of the present petitioner was illegal. He further observed that the land was for rendering service at the mosque. Proper services were not being rendered. An enquiry was held under section 5 of the said Act and the Government resumed the grant. That decision given by the Atiyat Collector is final, because of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the said Act. He, therefore, also held that the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was not maintainable. However, as the Additional Commissioner has confirmed the orders passed by the Atiyat Collector, the Officer on Special Duty confirmed the orders passed by the Atiyat Collector and dismissed the revision. 3.The petitioner has contended that the authorities below are confused as to whether the matter is covered under the Code or under the provisions of the said Act; and, in such circumstances, the orders passed by the lower authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that it was held that a lease by the Inamdar for a period more than three years was illegal; and that means that the Inamdar had the authority to lease the land for a period of three years. So, the possession of the petitioner as tenant ought to have been protected by giving necessary sanction. It is also contended that it was held that a lease by the Inamdar for a period more than three years was illegal; and that means that the Inamdar had the authority to lease the land for a period of three years. So, the possession of the petitioner as tenant ought to have been protected by giving necessary sanction. It is also contended by the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner can be protected under the Circular dated 9-8-1955 issued by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the orders passed by the authorities below be quashed and she be not dispossessed from the land. 4.It may be that there is some confusion in the minds of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner as to whether the matter was coming under the provisions of the Code or the said Act. But that cannot be a ground to set aside the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty. He has specifically held that the matter is covered under the provisions of the said Act and he has applied the provisions of the said Act. 5.The petitioner has not come before the Court with the specific plea that the land is service inam land or it is some other type of land. The tenure of the land as service inam land or some other tenure is not spelt out by the petitioner. But, on going through the general pleadings of the petitioner in the writ petition; and especially the contention of the petitioner that circular dated 9-8-1955 should be made applicable, it can be held that the petitioner agrees to the position that the land is service inam land. The petitioner has not producted any document on record to show that it is not the service inam land. 6.The Wakf Board made a complaint and, therefore, the enquiry as per section 5 of the said Act was started. The complaint was made long back in the year 1962, but because of quoting wrong survey number of the land, it remained pending till the year 1978. Ultimately the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, held that there was contravention of the provisions of section 5 of the said Act and, therefore, the land was resumed by the Government. This is indicated by the letter dated 30-5-1978 written by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, to the present petitioner. Ultimately the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, held that there was contravention of the provisions of section 5 of the said Act and, therefore, the land was resumed by the Government. This is indicated by the letter dated 30-5-1978 written by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, to the present petitioner. Because of this communication, she filed further proceedings. So, there is no doubt that the land is service inam land and the provisions of the said Act would be applicable to consider the rights of the parties. 7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 3 was the Inamdar and he leased the land for a period of 17 years to the petitioner under a registered lease deed. So, she was legally inducted as tenant and she cannot be dispossessed. According to the contention of the petitioner, she came into possession in the year 1970 and the lease deed was executed on 25-10-1972. 8.The learned Assistant Government Pleader has argued that the said Act makes a provision under section 6 as under : "Atiyat grants shall not be liable to be transferred or encumbered in any manner or to any extent whatsoever........." So, a lease is strictly prohibited by the provisions of section 6 of the said Act. The lease deed executed by the Inamdar in the year 1972 is hit by the provisions of section 6 of the said Act. The petitioner cannot claim that she is legally inducted as tenant in the land. 9.When the enquiry under section 5 of the said Act was held, the Government came to the conclusion that the Inamdar has failed to render the services and, therefore, the Government has resumed the land. The Inamdar respondent No. 3 has not challenged that order anywhere at any time. So, the order has become final and the land has come under the supervision of the Government. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, has argued that the authorities were within their rights to direct that the said land be leased out on yearly basis by auction. 10.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not heard when this enquiry was held. The petitioner was the occupant of the land, and, therefore, she ought to have been given hearing. However, we do not find any substance in this contention. 10.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not heard when this enquiry was held. The petitioner was the occupant of the land, and, therefore, she ought to have been given hearing. However, we do not find any substance in this contention. Section 5 of the said Act makes a provision that opportunity be given to the holder of Atiyat grant before taking any steps under section 5 of the said Act. A tenant inducted by the holder of the land, therefore, has no right to claim hearing under section 5 of the said Act. 11.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the ruling in the matter between (Mohd. Rasool Hidayat Khan v. Ayub Khan Karimkhan and others)1, 1983 Mah.L.R. (Bom.)575. However, the facts of that case are quite different from the facts of the present case. The petitioner Mohd. Rasool Hidayat Khan was claiming that he was Inamdar and Mutwali and, therefore, he ought to have been heard before passing any order under section 5 of the said Act. There, the person claiming right of hearing was not a tenant through Inamdar and, therefore, the ruling cannot be made applicable to the present case. 12.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the Circular, dated 9-8-1955, the copy of which is at Exhibit F, page 26; and it is contended that the Government has taken a policy decision that even in case of service inam land, which are not covered by the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the tenant in possession be allowed to cultivate the land on yearly basis. This Circular provides for the security of tenure and fixity of rent. So, even though the Government had resumed the grant, by implementing the directions in the Circular dated 9-8-1955 the petitioner ought to have been continued as tenant on yearly basis. 13.No doubt, the Circular dated 9-8-1955 provides that the tenants who were in actual cultivation of the land when the circular was issued should be protected and they be inducted as tenants on yearly basis on the same rent. But, this circular is issued by taking into consideration the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 13.No doubt, the Circular dated 9-8-1955 provides that the tenants who were in actual cultivation of the land when the circular was issued should be protected and they be inducted as tenants on yearly basis on the same rent. But, this circular is issued by taking into consideration the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Furthermore, to the circular dated 9-8-1955, further clarification dated 24-9-1955 was issued, which clearly indicates that the directions issued in the circular are to be made applicable to the persons who were actually in possession of the land as tenants on the date of circular or prior to that. By no stretch of imagination, the provisions of this circular can be made applicable to the tenants, who are inducted on the land by the Inamdar after 9-8-1955. 14.In this respect, the further directions issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department, to the Collector, Beed, on 1st July, 1980 are worth considering. The direction is that, ".... The Collector may use his discretion and extend these concessions to these lessees if they are cultivating the land lawfully for a considerable number of years. .... Any person cultivating the ... land lawfully on behalf of the Inamdar should not be dispossessed and he may be continued on the lands even when the lands are under Government supervision. ...." It means that the directions issued by the circular dated 9-8-1955 can be made applicable by the Collector by using his discretion. These directions are not mandatory directions, but only a guideline for the Collector to use his discretion. To use the discretion, the Collector has to see whether the person cultivating the land on behalf of the Inamdar is lawfully inducted by the Inamdar. Any person who has obtained lease from the Inamdar after coming into force of the said Act cannot be called as lawfully inducted tenant on the land, because section 6 of the said Act prohibits any such transfer. The present petitioner, who got the land from the Inamdar in the year 1970 and for which a lease deed was executed on 25-10-1972, cannot be considered as a lawful tenant. The Inamdar had no authority to create a lease right in favour of the petitioner after 1952. The present petitioner, who got the land from the Inamdar in the year 1970 and for which a lease deed was executed on 25-10-1972, cannot be considered as a lawful tenant. The Inamdar had no authority to create a lease right in favour of the petitioner after 1952. So, the directions issued in the circular dated 9-8-1955 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 15.When the enquiry under section 5 of the said Act was pending, the Inamdar executed the said lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The matter prolonged only because there was some mistake in quoting the survey number, but the enquiry was against the Inamdar, who was expected to render services to the mosque at Sarangpur; and the land could have been identified very easily. So, any transfer effected by the Inamdar during the pendency of this enquiry is hit by the final decision in the enquiry. When the title of the Inamdar was itself under the clouds, he had introduced the present petitioner as a tenant of the land. Obviously, the present petitioner had to suffer because of the final decision in the enquiry. She was not legally introduced as a tenant on the land. The Inamdar had no legal authority to create tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner on the land. So, the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty is perfectly legal and valid. 16.This writ petition is, therefore, being dismissed. Rule stands discharged, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----