Dismissed

Smt. B.Laxmi v. Govt. of Ap

Telangana HC28 Jan 2013WP/26578/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenged an order dismissing applications for occupancy rights certificates under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition Act. The High Court upheld the appellate authority's finding that the land was never under cultivation based on revenue records. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, confirming the order denying occupancy rights and justifying the regularization of

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by Smt. Vedula Sitamahalaxmi, Smt. B. Laxmi, and Sri Baikan Bikshapathy were dismissed; the impugned orders confirming the dismissal of occupancy claims were upheld.

Smt. B.Laxmi Vs Govt. of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

W.P.Nos.25790 & 26578 of 2003 & 27777 of 2009

¶3

Date:2 8 th January, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

W.P.No.25790 of 2003: Smt.Vedula Sitamahalxmi & Ors. and The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors.

¶6

**…..Petitioners ….Respondents *****

¶7

**W.P.No.26578 of 2003: Smt.B.Laxmi & Ors. …..Petitioners and Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Hyderabad & Ors. ….Respondents ***** W.P.No.27777 of 2009: Sri Baikan Bikshapathy & Ors. …..Petitioners and The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Hyderabad & Ors.

¶8

…..Petitioners ….Respondents *** …..Petitioners

¶9

**….Respondents *****

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

W.P.Nos.25790 & 26578 of 2003 & 27777 of 2009

¶12

COMMON ORDER:

¶13

The core issue involved in these three writ petitions is to the validity of the order dated 15-11-2003 of the Joint Collector, Ranga

¶14

Reddy District passed in Case No.F1/7992/1996. Therefore, all the three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶15

2. Facts, in brief, are:-

¶16

Khaja Mohinuddin and (30) others were the inamdars of land admeasuring Ac.16-35 guntas comprising Survey No.391/A of Alwal village. They got their names mutated in the revenue records as per mutation orders passed in File No.A1/4512/68, dated 28^th September, 1968. On 09.6.1970 the inamdars sold an extent of Ac.10-00 out of total extent of Ac.16-35 gts. to Guruva Reddy, Baicon Mallaiah, Erva Chandra Reddy, Dasarap Chandra Reddy and Pathri Pochaiah. Baicon Mallaiah, N.Guruva Reddy, E.Chandra Reddy and Y.Chandra Reddy came to be recorded as persons in occupation in respect of the land in question. There was some arrangement between the pattadars and persons in occupation of the land. In the said arrangement, the pattadars retained Ac.5-00. The persons in occupation entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 9-7-1980 in favour of Yadaiah and Alladi Saraswathi. Various documents came to be executed among the parties during the period 1981 to 1994. Baicon Mallaiah died in the year 1985. His legal representatives, namely, Baicon Lakshmi (wife), B.Bikshapathy, B.Sathyanarayana, B.Sree Ramulu, B.Mallesha and B.Gopi (sons) filed claim petition in Form No.1 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, for grant of occupancy rights certificates (ORC) under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) in respect of Ac.16-35 guntas comprising Sy.No.391/A of Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal. They impleaded G.Yadagiri @ Yadaiah and D.Augam Reddy as respondents in the

¶17

application before the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. Yadagiri and Augam Reddy resisted the claim of the legal representatives of B.Mallaiah. They pleaded before the Inams Tribunal that B.Mallaiah along with others executed agreement of sale in respect of the land in their occupation and received total consideration. B.Mallaiah lost possession of land during his life time and therefore, his legal representatives would not get any right over the land in dispute. It appears that Yadagiri @ Yadaiah filed a suit being O.S.226 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad for specific performance of agreement of sale whereas the legal heirs of B.Mallaiah filed suit being O.S.669 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad for injunction in respect of piece of land in Sy.No.391. The specific performance suit ended in dismissal whereas the injunction suit ended in decree, by common judgment dated 30.10.2008. The Inams Tribunal, on considering the pahani patrikas for the years 1977-78, 82-83, 83-84, 84-85, 85-86 and 86-87, agreement of compromise dated 25.7.1988, declaration of owners, namely, N.Guruva Reddy dated 6.12.1994, Y.R.Krishna Reddy and others dated 22.12.1994, agreement of sale dated 9.7.1980 and land revenue receipts, came to the conclusion that Baicon Malalaih was in possession of Ac.1-30 guntas whereas the vendors, namely Yadaiah and M.Damodar Reddy were in possession of Ac.5-20 guntas and Augam Reddy was in possession of Ac.0-18 guntas as on 01-11-1973 and thereby, proceeded to grant ORC for Ac.5-20 guntas in favour of Yadaiah, Ac.1-30 guntas in favour of legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah, Ac.0-18 guntas in favour of Augam Reddy, by order dated 30-12-1995. For better understanding, I may refer the relevant portion of the order of the Inams Tribunal-cum-

¶18

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and it is thus:-

¶19

“ The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Baikani Mallaiah are claiming Occupancy Rights Certificate for the entire extent of Ac.156-35 gts., in Sy.No.391. In fact the said Mallaiah and 4 others together had purchased only 10 acres in the said Sy.No. and in the purchased extent Mallaiah was having only Ac.1-30 gts. In the certified copies of the pahanies 1971-72, 1972-73 & 1974-75 Mallaiah is shown one among the three occupants of the land. In the certified copies of the phanies 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1982-83, his possession is recorded only for Ac.1-30 gts. Therefore, the legal heirs of Baikani Mallaiah the petitioners herein are entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights only for an extent of Ac.1-30 gts., as against their claim for Ac.16-35 gts. Accordingly, their claim is allowed partially and they are conferred occupancy rights under Section (4) of the Act for an extent of Ac.1-30 gts., in Sy.No.391 as successors in interest of the Inamdars, subject to payment of premium amount of Rs.75/-.

¶20

The Respondent No.2 Sri Agam Reddy claiming Occupancy Rights for an extent of Ac.2-30 gts. in Sy.No.391 on behalf of his brother Chandra Reddy. As discussed in the foregoing paras in the land of Ac.10-00 was purchased by five persons- Nimma Guruva Reddy S/o Sai Reddy, Baikani Mallaiah S/o Mallaiah, Erva Chandra Reddy S/o Anthi Reddy, Dasarapa Chandra Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, Pathri Pochaiah S/o Rajaiah jointly. Dasarapa Chandra Reddy is not claiming the land, the name of Original Purchaser, Chandra Reddy did not find place as one of the occupants of the land in the certified copies of the pahanies 1971-72, 72-73, 74-75, so as to indicate that he was in possession of the land on the date of vesting 1.11.1973, like was Sri Agam Reddy’s name also do not find place in any pahani available in file except in the year 1987-88, which is no relevancy and his name is not found in the record on the date of vesting, name of Chandra Reddy found in pahani have given affidavit on -61983, stating that his brother Sri D.Agam Reddy is having 1/4^th share in the property including the area of Sy.No.391 however according to record Sri D.Chandra Reddy is having extent of Ac.1-30 gts., in Sy.No.391 of Alwal village that the share comes to Ac.0-18 gts., out of Ac.1-30 gts., Sri

¶21

D.Chandra Reddy has not put any claim for occupancy rights certificate, therefore, rejected. Coming to Sri Agam Reddy he filed claim petition i.e., Respondent No.2 stating that he is share holder and he was in possession of the land Sy.No.391 for an extent of Ac.1-30 gts., on the date of vesting 1-11-1973. But he failed to prove his claim, accordingly his claim for occupancy rights in Sy.No.391 for an extent of Ac.2-30 gts is rejected, but as per the affidavit of his brother D.Chandra Reddy, dated 29.6.1983. Sri Agam Reddy is having 1/4^th share. Hence, Sri Agam Reddy is entitled to hold 1/4^th share of land in Sy.No.391 out of Ac.1-30 gts., which comes to only 0-18 gts. for which he is eligible for Occupancy Rights Certificate. Hence it is ordered to issue Occupancy Right Certificate for 0-18 gts., in favour of Agam Reddy on payment of premium amount of Rs.46/-.”

¶22

3. The legal heirs of Baicon Malliah filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act assailing the order dated 30-12-1995 passed by the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division. One V.Seetha Mahalaxmi filed petition under Order 1 Rule X and Section 151 CPC seeking her impleadment as party respondent in the appeal on the ground that she is an interested party since she purchased Plot Nos.123 and 124 admeasuring 409 square yards. The said application has been allowed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that neither the Inamdars nor their successors interest or any of the parties proved of the land being under their cultivation and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of occupancy rights certificate and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri to take possession of the land, by order dated 15-10-2003. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate authority and it is thus:-

¶23

“ On close verification of the orignal Pahani for the year 1973-74 it is found that the cultivation extent was added subsequently with slight change of ink as well as script are different from the rest of the pages. As such the original pahanies of 1972-73 & 1974-75 (preceding and succeeding to 1973-74) have been verified and found that the land bearing Sy.No.391/A measuring Ac.12-19 gts are padava and no cultivation. Similarly the land bearing Sy.No.391/B measuring Ac.4-16 gts are also padava and no cultivation on the land as discussed above. Thus it is clearly evident that in the year 1973-74 the cultivation extent has been added subsequently with slight change of ink and script are different from the rest of the pages, hence the entries 1973-74 are not taken into consideration. Since the land is fallow (padav) in the preceding and succeeding years i.e., 1972-73 & 1974-75. The lower court has not verified the Sethwar and relevant pahani of 1973-74 if the pahani for the year 1973-74 is not available the preceding and succeeding pahanies 1972-73 & 1974-75 has to be verified by the lower court before issue of Occupancy Right Certificate, but it did not happen in this case.

¶24

In view of the above it is clearly evident that land is fallow as such the so called certificate holders are not entitled for grant of Occupancy right certificate under the provisions of ………… held that occupancy rights certificate cannot be granted in respect of grazing lands.

¶25

Therefore the lands are absolutely vested in the Government and continue to be Government land, as such the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division in case No.L/4291/1994 dated 30.12.95 is set aside and the appeal is dismissed on the grounds as discussed in the earlier paras.

¶26

The Mandal Revenue Officer Malkajgiri is directed to take the possession of the land if it is not already in his control and protect it.”

¶27

4. Purchasers of Plots in Sy.No.391/A from M.Damodar Reddy and Agam Reddy as GPA Holders of B.Mallaiah, D.Chandra Reddy and another approached Government for regularization of their occupation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 and paid consideration to the Government

¶28

and obtained conveyance deeds by paying the stamp duty and registration charges. The children of Baicon Mallaiah filed W.P.No.27777 of 2009 against the Government and the purchasers questioning the action of the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri in executing the conveyance deeds. Vedula Seethamahalakshmi and 36 others filed W.P.No.25790 of 2003 questioning the validity of the order dated 1511-2003 of the appellate authority and order dated 30-12-1995 of the primary authority. Legal heirs of B.Mallaiah filed W.P.No.26578 of 2003 questioning the validity of the order dated 15-11-2003 passed by the appellate authority to the extent of negativing their claim in respect of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.391/1.

¶29

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

6. The parties herein after referred to as they arrayed in W.P.No.25790 of 2003.

¶31

7. It is contended by Sri B.Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that Baicon Mallaiah sold the property during his life time, and therefore, his legal heirs viz., Baicon Bikshapathi, Baicon Satyanarayana, Baikan Sreeramulu, Baicon Mallesh and Baicon Gopi had not inherited any interest in inam lands and therefore, they were not entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. In a way, it is his contention that Baicon Mallaiah came to be divested with the possession of the land in the year 1980 itself having executed a registered agreement of sale and he did not choose to question the sale during his life time and therefore, his legal representatives cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the registered agreement of sale, dated 09.07.1980. Learned counsel refers various documents such as sale deed, dated 09.06.1970; registered agreement of sale, dated

¶32

09.07.1980; General Power of Attorney, dated 17.11.1994; an agreement of compromise, dated 25.07.1993 and entries in the pahani patrikas commencing from 1954-55 to 1974-75. He also refers the pleadings of legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah in O.S.No.226 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar. By referring the pleadings of the legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah in O.S.No.226 of 1996, it is contended by the learned counsel that the legal representatives of Baicon Mallaiah admitted of registered agreement of sale, dated 09.07.1980 in favour of Yadagiri and Smt.Saraswathi. Much emphasis has been laid in the following paragraph of the counter-affidavit filed by Smt.Baicon Lakshmi, who is the wife of Baicon Mallaiah and it is thus:

¶33

“In reply to para.3 of the affidavit, we are not disputing about the alienation of the possessary rights by Bicon Mallaiah, Nimma Guruva Reddy, D.Chandra Reddy and Yerava Chandra Reddy in favour of the petitioner Sri Yadaiah @ Yadagiri and Smt.A.Saraswathi through a registered agreement of sale bearing document No.2746/80, dt.9-7-1980 for a valuable consideration to an extent of Ac.7.19 gts out of total extent of Ac.12.19 gts and the pattedars could retain an extent of Ac.5.0 gts for themselves and to that effect also a plan was shown in blue colour appended to the said registered agreement of sale and it is also true that the said lands were alienated at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre, which comes to a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- and after institution of the case, it is learnt that as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, dt.9-7-1980 that the amounts as shown were paid by the petitioner and another and further the respondent No.7 is also the attesting witness to the said agreement. We are also not disputing about the mode of payment made by the petitioner and another as well, the amounts were also received excessively as per the receipts placed by the petitioner in the Court. The respondent No.1 to 6 are also not disputing about the execution of the registered GPA bearing document No.82/81, on 17-9-1981 in favour of V.Damodar Reddy permitting to execute the registered sale deeds as demanded by the petitioner and Smt.A.Saraswathi.”

¶34

Sri B.Venkata Rama Rao would further contend that even otherwise, the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.27777 of 2009 got their possession regularized by paying the requisite amounts as provided under G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn.) Department, dated 16.03.2008 and obtained conveyance deeds from the government and therefore,

¶35

their possession cannot be disturbed by the legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah. By referring the entries in the pahani patrikas, it is contended by the learned counsel that the land remains uncultivated right from the year 1951-52 and therefore, the contention of the legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah that Baicon Mallaiah cultivated the land during his life time and thereafter they are cultivating the land cannot be accepted. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the following decisions:

¶36

1) Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Govt. of A.P .^[1]

¶37

2) B.Ramender Reddy v. District Collector, Hyderabad Dt .^[2]

¶38

3) S.Narasimha v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy Dt .^[3]

¶39

4) N.Padmamma v. S.Ramakrishna Reddy^[4]

¶40

8. In Kodithala Keshavulu’s case (1 supra), it has been held by the learned single Judge of this Court that Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, clearly provides for an application being made, not only by the inamdar, kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant, but also by their successors-in-interest. It is trite to note para.4 of the cited judgment and it reads as hereunder:

¶41

“As stated above, the Act was not brought into force at once and that has led to several unfortunate consequences and complications. Only the provision abolishing the Act and certain other provisions were brought into force with effect from 20.07.1956, while keeping the remaining provisions of the Act in embryo. The rest of the Act came into force only from 01-11-73. During the interregnum the rights of the landlords and tenants were retained in tact and since the remaining provisions and particularly the provisions contained in Sections 5 to 8 were not enforced, no proceedings could be taken for registering the inamdars or other persons mentioned in those Sections as occupants. But this delay should not prejudice the rights of the concerned parties. Had the entire Act been brought into force in 1955, then there is no doubt that the inamdar would have been recognised (subject to the requirements of Section 4 being satisfied) as an occupant and he would then have been entitled to

¶42

alienate or transfer the said lands. Merely because there has been a delay in implementing the rest of the provisions of the Act, such right of inamdar should not be taken away. Further Rule 5 clearly provides for an application being made not only by the inamdar, but also by his successor-in-interest. The word, "successor-in-interest is of wide amplitude. It need not be confined only to heirs. An interest can devolve either by succession or by private treaty or by the operation of law. In all these cases, the persons upon whom the 'interest devolves would be a successor-in-interest. It may be that the position will be different if the alienation is prior to the date of abolition, viz., prior to 20-7-1956. In such a case it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But once the inams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon.”

¶43

9. In B.Ramender Reddy’s case (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the relevant date for the purpose of recognizing the occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act is 01.11.1973. If, on that date, either the inamdar or the different categories of tenants are in possession of the land, they would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights.

¶44

10. In S.Narasimha’s case (3 supra), it has been held by this Court that an alienee from inamdar of inam land who was in occupation and possession of the said land as on 01.11.1973, when A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, came into force, would be entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate.

¶45

11. In N.Padmamma’s case (4 supra), the Supreme Court doubted the proposition of law laid down in Lokraj v. Kishan La l^[5] and referred the matter for consideration by larger bench.

¶46

12. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.Dhanunjai, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents (legal heirs of Bicon Mallaiah), submits that the approach of the Joint Collector in considering the appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act is

¶47

wholly unsustainable for the reason that the lands consequent on abolition of inams did not vest with the government absolutely except in respect of the lands which have been exempted from grant of occupancy rights certificates. Consequent on abolition of inams, various categories of persons mentioned in Sections 4 to 8 of the Act are entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land vested with the government. Since the whole approach of the Joint Collector is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the proposition of law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court in various decisions, the order of the Joint Collector is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration. He would also submit that the sale of the land after the date of enforcement of the Act is invalid and purchasers do not acquire any right over the land. A further submission has been made that as on this day, the proposition of law laid down in Lokraj’s case (5 supra) has not been set aside and therefore, the law laid down in Lokraj’s case holds the field. As per the decision of the Lokraj’s case, consequent on the abolition of Inams, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until regrant is made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land. Since the possession of Baicon Mallaiah has been recorded in pahani patrikas, his legal representatives are entitled for grant of occupancy rights certificate. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:

¶48

1) Lokraj v. Kishan Lal (5 supra)

¶49

2) Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist .^[6]

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on para.28 of the

¶51

judgment in Chama Narasimha Reddy’s case (6 supra) and it reads as hereunder:

¶52

“In Lokraj v Kishan Lai, the Supreme Court considered the effect of abolition of inams and vesting of land in the State by reason of which the right in the land stood transferred to the State. In that case, respondent had filed a suit for partition of certain lands some of which were inam lands. On a preliminary question, the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, took the view that even in respect of inam lands a suit for partition is maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the view of the High Court and held as under.

¶53

Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory operation unless re-grant is made. We are not concerned with the consequences that would ensue after re-grant of this appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the question that may arise after the re-grant. (emphasis supplied)”

¶54

13. The Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act was enacted by the erstwhile Hyderabad Legislature with the object of abolishing the inams in the former State of Hyderabad. Section 3 enacts the abolition of all the imams with effect from the date of the commencement of the Act and their vesting in the Government. Sections 4 to 8 provide for registration of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants as occupants of the inam lands. The legislative intent, as deducible from the scheme of the Act and its provisions, appears to be that persons in actual possession and cultivation of the abolished inams should be registered as occupants subject to specified limitations and conditions. The vesting provision under Section 3 is for the purpose of working out the rights of the several persons as spelt out in the provisions of the Act. Absolute vesting in the State is limited to situations and circumstances provided in the Act itself. The Act was not in force in its entirety in 1955. Only the provisions of Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 (Excluding clauses (d)(g)(h) and (i) of subsection (2) and Sections 30

¶55

to 34, 36 and 37 were brought into force with effect from 20-7-1956. After the formation of new State of A.P., the A.P. (T.A.) Inams Abolition Act, 1967 was enacted to repeal the 1955 Act. This Act was struck down. Thereafter a Bench of this Court held that on the striking down of the 1967 Act, the Act revived. After these developments, a notification was issued brining the entire Act into force with effect from 01-11-1973 and in G.O. Ms. No.870 Revenue (G), dated 27-6-1975, Rules were issued for effectuating the purposes of the Act - the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules 1975. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the expression "Inamdar" to include a 'successor-in-interest' of an inamdar. This expression and in the context of the Act having been enforced at different points in time, came to be considered by Jeevan Reddy, J., (as his Lordship then was) in Kodithala Keshavulu v. Government of A.P., (1 supra). This decision held that in the interregnum between the enforcement of certain provisions with effect from 20-07-1956 and others with effect from 01-11-1973, the rights of the landlords and tenants remained intact as no proceedings could be taken under Sections 4 to 8 for registering the inamdars or other persons mentioned in those provisions, as occupants. Therefore, Kodithala Keshavulu’s case (1 supra) held, the right of the inamdar under the Act must not be interpreted as having been taken away. The Court held that the expression "successor- in-interest" would include a person upon whom an interest devolves even if the devolution be by an inamdar after 20-07-1956. As a corollary of this decision, which holds the field as on date, a person who succeeds to the interest of an inamdar even after 20-07-1956 including by alienation or transfer from such inamdar, if in occupation and possession of erstwhile inam lands as on 01-11-1973, would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and subject to its conditions.

¶56

14. The Joint Collector referred the entries in pahani patrikas for the years 1951-52 to 1974-75 and observed that entries in respect of the year 1973-74 are tampered. I do not see any valid ground to disturb the finding of the appellate authority on this factual aspect. The land in question was not put under cultivation under any of the years. At this juncture, it is trite to point out that the primary authority has observed that the land has been under cultivation without there being any material. The primary authority has observed in the order as hereunder:-

¶57

“ As per the depositions of Nimma Guruva Reddy S/o Sai Reddy, Erva Buchi Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy they have stated that themselves along with Baicon Mallaiah, S/o Balaiah Desaram Chandra Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy & Pathri Pochaiah S/o Rajaiah have jointly purchased the land Sy.No.391 to an extent of 10 acres out of the total extent of Ac.16-30 gts which has been in their possession for the last more than (40) years and in view of the fertility of the land, the purchasers have been cultivating the land as follows and accordingly, entries were made in the pahanies. Erva Chandra Reddy Ac.2-30 gts Nimma Guruva Reddy Ac.2-30 gts Desaram Chandra Reddy Ac.1-30 gts Baicon Mallaiah Ac.1-30 gts Golle Pochaiah Ac.1-00 gts.

¶58

There is no basis for the observations made by the primary authority. The pahani patrikas for the years 1951-52 and 1974-1975 do not indicate of the extent stated therein being under cultivation by Y.Chandra Reddy and others.

¶59

15. The necessary requisite for grant of occupancy rights certificate is that the land must be under cultivation. The parties claiming for occupancy rights certificate did not choose to place on record any material to substantiate their plea that the land in question was under

¶60

their cultivation at the relevant point of time. The Joint Collector having taken note of the entries in the pahani patrikas came to the conclusion that the land in question was never under cultivation right from the year 1951-52 to 1974-75. It is not the case of the legal heirs of Baicon Mallaiah that the land remained uncultivated for few years for want of rain or for any reason. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that merely because land remained uncultivated cannot take away the same from the purview of Sections 4 to 8 of the Act for grant of occupancy rights certificates. I am unable to agree with the learned senior counsel in view of the entries in the revenue records right from the year 1951-52 to 1974-75. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no flaw in the order passed by the Joint Collector in Case No.F1/7992/1996, dated 15.11.2003. Accordingly, W.P.No.25790 of 2003 filed by Smt.Vedula Sitamahalaxmi & Ors; W.P.No.26578 of 2003 filed by Smt.B.Laxmi & Ors. are liable to be dismissed. When once the order, dated 15.11.2003, passed by the Joint Collector on appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act, is confirmed, the government is justified in regularizing the possession of the purchasers pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn.) Department, dated 16.03.2008. Accordingly, W.P.No.27777 of 2009 is also liable to be dismissed.

¶61

16. In the result, all the three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶62

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶63

Date:28^th January, 2013.

¶64

Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O RAR/CS

¶65

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶66

W.P.Nos.25790 & 26578 of 2003 & W.P.No.27777 of 2009