This second appeal raises the following questions:-
(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.
(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).
Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.
(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.