Purchasers of inam lands challenged occupancy rights certificates granted to rival claimants and consequential revenue entries. The Court dismissed both petitions because the purchasers failed the statutory eligibility and vesting-date possession requirements, leaving competing title claims to the competent civil court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
I,,IONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.28720 of 2008 and 9027 of 2009
WRIT PETITION NO: 28720 OF 2008
Between:
AND
Petition under Articte 226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavltfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs or direction,more particularly a writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned orderpassed by the 1st Respondentin file No.F111 27912006 dated 06.12.2008, and as wellas the order of the 2nd Respondent in file No..1/4078/2005 dated 27.01 .2006and the occupancy Rights certificate (oRC) dated 08.02.2006 issued infavour ofRespondentNo.4 to 8 and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent toconsider the applicationof the writ petitioners for grant of occupancy Rights certificate,being'successo rs-in-interest'in respectof Sy.No.57 Adm. 0-39gts, andSy.No.58 Adm. 2-09gts, Sy.No.59 adm acres2-00gts. total admeasuring s-O8gts. situatedat Kokapet Village, RajendranagarMandalin R.R. District.
COUNSEI fOr thE PEtitiONETS:SRI S. NIRANJAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELFOR SRI, A. VENK,ATESH
Counsel for the RespondentNos.1to 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for theRespondent Nos.4to 8: SRI E' MADAN MOHANRAO
il2ll
WRIT PETITIONNO: 9027OF 2009
Between:
AND
Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of lrdia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto issue a writ or writs or direction moreparticularly a Writ of M;rndamus by setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondentpassed in file No.B'1/1812/2008 dated 17.12.2008 by declaring as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionaand nonest in the eyeof law, along with the affect of effectingany changes by amelding in ROR Register of Kokapet Village and any changes inpahanifor the yee.r 2008-09in respectof Sy.No.57 Adm. 0.29.35gts, andSy.No.58Adm. 1-26.75 elts,Sy.No.59Adm. acres 1-20 gts. total admeasuring 3-35gts. situated at KokapetVillage,RajendraNagar Mandal, R.R. District.
WVMP. NO:3 060 0F 200s
Between:
Samala Surender Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reddy, Rl/o. Flat No.302, Bhavyas Krishna Residency, Hyderabad.
AND
....Responderrt:;/Petitioners/Petitioners
ll3lt
(RR 5 to I are not necessary)
...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 29-4-2009 in WPMP No. 11803/2009 in W,P.No.902712009.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. A. VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICEA.ABHISHEKF,EDDY
W.P. Nos.2872O OF 2OO8 ^nA9027OF 2 llre
COMMON ORDER:
Since the subject lands and parties to both thewrit petitions are one and the same, they are taken ulr together and disposed of by this common order.
W.P. No.28720 of 2008 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Joint-II, Ranga Reddy Dis:rtict in fi1e No.F1/ 1279 l2006, dated O6. l2.2OO8 as well as th: order passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Djvisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy Dis trict, in file No.l 1407812005 dated 27.01.2006 and the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 08.O2.2006 granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 and consequently to direct the RDOI.o consider the application of the petitioners for grant of ORC in their favour in respect of the land in survey No.57 admeasuring ;\c.0-39 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Acs.2-09 guntas, survey No.59 admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas, totai extent of Ac.5.()8 gts., situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
W.P. No.9027 of 2009 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar in file No.B1/ 1812l2OOA dated 17.12,2008 along with the consequential changes by amending in ROR register of Kokapet Village and any changes in pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect :f land in survey No.57 admeasuring Ac.0-29.35 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Ac.7-26.75 guntas, and in survey No.59 admeasuring Ac. 1-20
)
AAR.J W P Nos 28720/2009 & 9027 /2009
guntas, totally admeasuring Acs.3-35 guntas, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
As against the order dated 17.72.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, ordering to effect the name of one Samala Sunder Reddy, who claims to havepurchased the subjectlands from the unofficial respondents under Relinquishmentand Release document Nos. 1909/2006 and 284312008,the writ petitioners have filed W.P.No.9027 o{2OO9.
The case of the writ petitions, inbrief, is that originallythe subject lands are the registeredpatta lands of Gandaiah, Veeraiah, Lingaiah and Pentaiah. Duringthe life time of Gandaiahand Pentaiah, they along with theChowdaiahS/o.late Veeraiahand Smt.Venkatamma W/o.1ateVeeraiahand Narsimha S/o.Lingaiah have executed registered saledeeds bearing document Nos.3659/1987 and 365811987dated 08.05.1987 in favour ofthe vendors of the petitionersherein and possessionwas also delivered to them. Subsequently,the petitionershave purchased the subject lands under registered saledeeds bearingdocument Nos.i0957/1989 dated 14.09.1989and11019/1989 dated 16.09.1989 and their nameswere aiso incorporated in the revenue records vide proceedings of theMandal Revenue Ofhcer dated 06.12.199l, and since the dateof purchase, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of thesubject lands. In the year 2000, petitioners got surveyed the schedulelands through Deputy Inspector of Survey &Land Records, who fixed the peg stores by demarcating the boundarieswith meters and bounds underthe cover of panchanamaThereafter, petitioners have constructeda
AAR,] W.P Nos.2E?20/2008 & 902112009
compound wall around the subject lands and alabourroom therein after obtaining necessary approval frol---t theGram Panchayat. The petitioners entered into a developmentagreement- cum-irrevocable GPA vide registered document N,r. 15a48/2005 dated 14.1O.2005 for developing the property. Whil: things stood thus, the petitioners came to know that the subject lands were shown as Mafi Inam in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, which attract the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 ('the Act', for short). When the petitioners have questioned the unoflicial respor dents for not informing the nature of land, at the time of purchase, they have given statements before the RDO on 2l.ll.2006 expressing noobjection for issuance of ORC and pattadar passboc,ks in favour of the petitioners herein. In spite of saying so, the unofficial respondents have submitted a separate applicatiorr in Form No.1 before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar for issu,lnce of ORC in their favour. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of admitting the physical possession of the petitioners and implementation of their names in the revenue rer)ords, the RDO issued ORC in favour of the unofficial respondent; and in appeal the same was confirmed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar. Assailing the same, the petitioners have filed W P. No.28720 of 2008.
In W.P. No.2872O of 2008, a counter has been filed mainly contending that when the land in question itself is an Inam land, the sale deeds executed in favour of the vendors c,f the petitioners are void for the reason that before obtaining ORC the right to transfer will not accrue. Mere getting the land s urveyed through
AAR.J W.P.Nos.2872012008 & 902'7 t2009
4
the Deputy Inspectorof Survey, obtainingaPProvalfrorn Grampanchayatfor construction of compound wal1'obtainingloan and creation ofmortgagewill not create or vest any right/title in favour of thewrit petitioners. The averment made in the writ petition that theserespondents have given a statement beforethe RDO on 21.11.2006requestingto issue ORC in favour of the writ petitioners was denied.After conducting a detailedenquiryand taking into considerationthe possession' as on the dateoi vesting for issuanceof ORC i'e' O1'1 l'1g73'the authoritieshave issued the ORC.Hence, the transactionsmade prior to issuance of ORC are voidand' non est in the eye of law' Hence' it is prayedto dismiss thewrit Petition'
In W.P. No.9027of 2O09, a counter affidavit has been filed denying thematerialaverments made in the writ petitionand stating thatas against the impugned order' dated 17 '12'2OO8't}:.e petitioners haveinitiated two parallelproceedingsi'e'' an appeal beforetheRDounderSection5(5)oftheRecordofRightsinLand and PattadarPass Books Act, 1971 (for short' the ROR Act)and another is thepresentwrit petition' which is impermissibleand there cannotbe two parallelproceedings questioning the very same order. Hence,the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed'
Heard SriS.NiranjanReddY,the learned Senior Counsel, appearingon behalf of Sri A'Venkatesh'the learned counselfor the writpetitioners, the learned Government Pleaderfor Revenue for iearnedSenior officialrespondents,Sri E'Madan MohanRao SeniorCounsel, Counsei,and Sri D Prakash Reddy'learned
AAR,J \r( P ."ios.28?20r'2008& 902'l t2009
appearingon behalf of Sri Thoom Srinivas' learnedcounsel' for the unofficial respondents.Perused the record'
The admittedfacts are that the subject iands rrre mafi inam lands. Thepetitioners hereinhave purchased the subject property under registeredsale deed, dated, i4'09' 1989 rlocumentNo' i0957 of 1989 fromNagesh Pramod Shinde & Harshal Pramod Shinde; and anotherregistered sale deed, dated 1(;'o9'1989 vide document No.1 1019of 1989 fromMrs' Deoyani P Shinde & Dr' P.S. Shinde, who inturn had purchasedthe strb.jectproperty under registeredsale deed, dated 08.05 1987 vide document No' 3658 of 1987 andregistered sale deed, dated 08'05 1987vide document No. 3659of1987 from (i) R' Gandaiah (father of respondent Nos.4 &5); (ii) R. Pentaiah; (iii) R' Sodiatr (Respondent No. 6); (iv) R.Narsimha(RespondentNo' 8); fz) Venkatamma (mother of respondentNos' 6 & 7). Challenging the grantof ORC by the Revenue DivisionaiOfhcer infavour of the unofficial respondents, thepetitioners herein have hled a statutory appeal providedunderSection24oflheActbeforetheJointCollector, and the Joint Collectorvide order, dated 06'12'2008 In File No' FI 11279 l2006,has dismissed the appealconfirrrring the orders of the RDO and theTahasildar.
The RDO after recording afinding that the petitionersare not in personalpossession/cultivationof the slrbject land as on the date of vestingi.e., 01.1 I . 1973,has recogniz;ed the legal heirs of the original Inamdars andgranted ORC in :heir favourwhile negativing the contentionsof the petitioners '-hat they are the successors-in-interest ofthe originalInamdars.The said finding
AAR.J W.P.Nos.28?2012008 & 902112009
6
has been conllrmed by the Joint Co.llect or vide ordor, datecl 06.12.2008. The Joint Collector while elaborately discussing various provisions of the Act has categorically held that the petitioners cannot be granted ORC on the ground that they were not in personal cultivation/ physical possession of the land as on 01.1 1.1973 and that the aiienation in their favour by the Inamdars or their successions in interest is not valid, as theoriginal Inamdars or the vendors of the petitioners did nothave any ORC in the ir favour at the time of execution of saledeed and that the sale is after the lands have vested with the State.
For better appreciation and for thepurpose of decidingthe case on hand, it is relevantto extract sub-sections(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and fi) of Section 2(1) and otherrelevant provisionsof the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition ofInams Act, 1950(hereinafter called as 'the Act).
Section 2 of the Act deals with'Definitions' and sub-section (1) says that in this Act, unless thereis anything repugnant in the subject or context-
(a) xxx
(b) the expression 'date oJ uesting'ttlhen used - (i) in sub-section (1), sub-section(2) withreference to clauses ia),(b), (c), (e) and f)andsub-section (3) of Section 3 andtn Section 34, means tlledateof publication of thisAct in the Official Gazette; (it) elseuhere in this Act means thedate appointed bg the Gouernment under clause(b) of sub-section(3) of Section1; (c) 'inam' means land held. under agift or grantmadeby the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holderof a Samsthan or other competent grrnto, oid coitinued or conJirmedby uirtue of muntakhabor other iitte deed, L,ith or Luithout thecondition of seruice andcoupledwith the remissiotl of the Luholeor part of the land reuenue thereonand entered as suchin the uillage recordsand inctudes -
(i) arezi makhta, arazi agroharand seiinam; and '1it| lands held as tnam by utnue of long possession and
entered as irutmin the uillage records; Prouid.ed that inrespectof formerJagirareas, the expressioninam shall not includ.e suih landlsas haue notbeen recognisedas imams bA Gouemment ailerthe abolitionof the Jagirs.
.{AR,J W. P.Nos.28720/2008 & 9027 /2009
7
(d) 'inamdar' means a person hotding an inam or a share therein, either for his oun beneftt ot in trust and includes the srrccessor in interest of an inamdaL and -
(i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound rnird or an idiot, his lauful guardian;
(ii) tuhere an inamdar is a Joint Hindu familg, such Joint Hindu familg.
(e) 'kabize'e'khadim' nteans the holder of tnam tand, ott,er than an inamdar, utho has been in possession of such land at thc. time of the grant of inom or has been in conlinuous possessirn o/ such land for not less ,han tuelue Aears before the date ol testing and u.tho pags the inamdar onlV the land reuenue.
(g) non-protected tenant' means a tenant other than a permonent tenanl or a 'protected tenant'.
(h) 'permanent tenant' means a person uho, from a dtlte pior to 10th June, 1950, has been cvltiuating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar uhether under an int;trument or an oral agreement.
(j) protected tenant' means the protected tenant as deJined in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancg and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 195O).
That by virtue of Section 3, all the inams srtood abolished except those that were saved expressly as provided under this Act. For the purpose of granting ORC, the following persons envisaged under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 i.e., Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants, and non-protected tenants, were recognized as being eligible for the grant of OliC under the Act. Section 9 deals with vesting of lands, on whi(h buildings are there, in the persons who owned it immediately before the date of abolition. Section 10 grants powers of the Collector to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 are eligible to be registered as occupants. For the purpose of deciding the presen, case, the other provisions are not necessary to be extracted.
A reading of the above provisions clearly scts out that the persons who are envisaged under Sections 4 to g of the Act alone are eligible for grant of ORC. The only condition precedent for grant of ORC to the persons enumerated under S()ciions 4 to g is that they should be in personal cultivation/posses;sion of the said
AAR.] W.P.Nos.2872012008 & 902'7 t2009
3
land as on the date ot vesting. For thepurpose of granting ORC, the date of vesting has beenheld to be 01.1 1.1973by a catena of decisions of this Courtand confirmedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court.
Relying on thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in StateofMaharashtrav.LaxmanAmbajil,alearnedSingleJudge of this Courtin a decision reportedin Smt'Kannammav' District collector, Rangareddy2,has held the date ofvesting as 01.11.i973 forthe purpose of grantingORC' This decisionhas also been confirmedby aDivision Bench of this Court in N, SudershanReddy v. Smt' Kannamma (deceased by LRs)3' Another DivisionBench of this Court in a decision reported in B' Ramender Reddyv. District Collectora' at para 55' has held as under:
'From theaboue,it foltotusthatthe releuant date for the nttrnose of recoonizinqlhe occupancgighlsunder S"ction-4to 8 of i;:;;;;! r.rll.iizslg. on tiar dati' eitherthe inamdaror the rl;ffpr?ttt cateoories oltenanlsare in possession of the land' lheA i,:il;;;";"';;;ii"iio-!"iig"o"' of occupancsrishts on theIactsof ,h" nr"""n, case,the Collector foundlhal neitherlhe successors-ln- 'r"i.i"ti ,i ,iJi")iJri i"' ntio called purchasers lrom the oisinal inamdar urere inpossessionof the inam lands' euenas on L'o.oz.7gis.Thereiore,the quesiionof they being in possessionolr ii" i""^-;"i.igL" in oti.t'lszs doesiot aise'consequentlg' the arenot entitled forgrqnl of occupancA rtghtsunder Section4 oJ the Act.'
This view hasconsistentlybeen upheld by ail the laterjudgments' A reading of theabovedecisions renderedby this Court clearly holdsthatthedateofvestingforthepurposeofgrantingoRCis o 1.1 1.1973 andthe said date of vestingholds good till date'
'ArR 1971 sc 1859
'1990(1)An.w.R.722
'AIR1994 AP116
o (1993(2) An.w.R. 84)
L ---
AAR.] w.P N<,s.28?20/2008& 902',1t2009
9
That insofar asthe eligibilityof the persons en'/isaged under Sections4 to 8 of the Act for grant of oRC is twofold. Firstly, that person should fit intoanyone of the five categori'ls of persons envisaged underSections4 to 8 of the Act i'e', he should eitherbe an Inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim,permanent tenant, prctected tenant, or non-protected tenant.Secondly, that person should be in personal cultivation/possessionof the said landsas on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1979.This Court in S. Narasimhav' Joint Collector-Il, Ranga Reddy Districtshas held thatzt person who is in occupation andpossessionof the inam lands as ou 01.ll 1973 could be entitled tothe benefits of the Act subject1o its condition' A Division Bench of thisCourt in G. VenkatItam Reddyv'
Najeebunnisao, has heldat para 29 as under:
"..........The Act is a beneficiallegislation.20't'Julg, 1955 is the date on whtch al|tmams to tthich the Act applA st)od uested in the State whereas undertheAct the releuant date fo'obtaining occupancA ights is 1'rNouember,1973 in theSta e of Andhra Prcrdesh. Inamdars or tenantsin possessionof theI'tn'7Gs on .i"' Nouember, 1973 became entitledto seek grant of occl'pQncA ights' Irrespectiue of the orderpassed bg the NazimAtigat,tE questionof the grant of occupancAightsunderSections4 to Ihas to be decided by lhe Co[lectorhold.ing aninquiry as prouided under Section 10 of tie Inam Act. Notwithstandingabolitionof the imams ort 20.7.1955 and uesting of the imams in theState, ights of the inln'darsor the tenants are not ertinguishedprovidedtheV uerein polisessionoif the land as on the reteuantdate, namelg,1$ Nouember,1973, on tuhich d.ate the rest of theproutsions of theAct lLerebroughllnto force."
Another Division Bench ofthis Courtin B. Ramender Reddy and others v. The District Collector,Hyderab'rdDistrictThas held that right toget occupancyrights is not ':o-related to the vesting of imams in the Government.Thereforeeventhough all the imams vested in State as on 20th July,1')55, in case the inamdars or various types ofpersons, mentionedir-r Sections5, 6,
'zooo 1a1nlr e+
"2oos (3) ALT313 (D.8.)
'togz 1zyAn.w.R.84 (DB)
t0
w.p.N.".2s720l2tf8RJ 9021/2009
7 and B, were in possession of the land as on 01.1 1.1923, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act.
Admittediy, in this case, the petitioners have purchased the land in the year 19g7 and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that they are in personal possession of the subject lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01 . t1 .).g23. The learned counsel has argued that the delinition of Inamdar as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act includes the successor_in_interest and it would include any person who has purchased the subject lands from the original inamdar or any other person claiming under them to be entitled to oRC. The learned counser has relied on the decisions reported in K. Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Government of A,p.s, and S, Veera Reddy v. Ch.Chandraiahe to buttress this argument. But, a perusal of these two decisions would reveal that the facts therein are different from the facts in this particular case. In both the above decisions, the purchasers had purchased the subject lands between the date of abolition of the Inam i.e. 20.7.1955, and the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.I973. In both these cases, this Court in the light of the peculiar factsof the cases has held that the successor in interest includepersons who have purchased the land after the abolition ofthe lands but prior to the date of vesting i.e., 01.11'1973and thereforethey wouldbe entitled togrant of ORC.The Division Benchin S' Veera Reddy (supra) held that in an enquirycontemplatedunderSection10 regarding the claimsof the inamdars, Kabize-e-khadim'protected tenant and non-protectedtenant for being registeredas occupants'
8 1978 (1) APLJ {HC) 378 '1995 12)ALT172 (D.8.)
AAR'J w I Nss2E']2012008& q027/200q
11
wilihave to be satisfiedthat (i) the landsin question wereunder the personalcultivationof the claimant; and (ii) together with any land ownedald cultivated by him separately'are equal to trvo and a half timesfor the familyholding'However'in view of t'efact thatthe petitionersherein trave purchased the iands in 1987' the above two decisionsrelied by the rearnedcounsel for the petitionr'rs are of no help and thesaiddecisionsare not applicableto facts of these cases' Moreover,in N. Sudershan Reddy (supra), the Division Bench of this Courthas overruled the judgmentof the learnedSingleJudge rendered in K. KodithalaKeshawulu (supra) and insofar as th: judgment of the DivisionBench renderedin S' VeeraReddy (supra)is concerned'as d.iscussedabove, the same is not applicableto the facts of the present case
Anotherpoint raised by the learned counselfor the petitionersls that in view of thedefinition of Inamdar provided underSection2(d) of the Act, the word" Inamdar" includesthe successors-il-interestand that the successors-in-interestcarr be purchasers and that it need not be confined only to meanthe 1ega1heirs of the Inamdar'Even though, the learned. counsel for thepetitionershas relied on the dt:cisions reportedin K. Kodithala Keshawulu(supra) and S. Veerit Reddy (supra), as discussed in theprecedingpara, thisCourt inN. Sudershan Reddy (supra) has overruled the law laid down in K. Kodithala Keshawulu (supra) and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in those two cases is mLsplaced and of no helpful to the case of the petitioners. A learnerl Single Judge of this Court in S.Narasimha (supra) while negativing the contention of the revision petitioners, who ciaimed to be the purchasers of the Inam lands after 1989 has held that they cannot be granted ORC as they
AAR,J W.P.Nos.28720/2008 & 9027 /2009
t2
do not meet the requirement of 1aw that they should bepersonal cultivation / possession of the subject land as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.1 1.1973. In another decision in Chama Narasimha Reddy
v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabadlo, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the purchasers of the inam lands, after the date of abolition, cannot begrantedORC. The learned Single Judge, on the point, whether thepurchasers from lnamdars are entitled for ORC, atpara 25, has observedas
under:-
"25. Readhg olSections4, 5, 6, 7 Qnd 8 read with 10 of Irlzms Abolitton Act tuould sholu that so as lo beregisteredas occupant of agriculturol inan land, differentcategoies of persons l'raue to shotu that as on the date of uesting theVu)ere in possessron of such land in u.thateuer capacitA theg claim.The hnnts Abolition Act aboLislrcd inams witheffect from20.7.1955 and. the Gouentment declared1.11.1973qs the date of uesting for the purpose of Sections 4 lo 8.Therefore, thoughatl the inams stood abolished ond the land vested inthe Stateis free from encumbrances with effect from 20.7.1955,all the personswho ruere in possession of the land as on1.11.1973areentitled for ORC. If a person claims to besuccessor in interestof inamdar bg reason of a sale ofter 20.7.1955, such salecannot be recognized forthe simplereason that fromthat date, the land uested in the State and all ights to inam landstoodabolished.The inamdar had therefore no ight to transfer theproperty toa third partg after 2O.7.1955 uhen he became incompetentto transkrthepropertg.'
As observed above, the Act not onlyenvisagesgrant of ORC in favour of only the persons who areenumeratedunderSections 4 to 8 of the Act but also that they shouldbe inpersonal cultivation/ possession of the subject landsas on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. Unless and untilthe person meets these two criterion, the ORC cannot be issued.
In view of the above mentioned factsand the law laid down by this Court, the writ petition No.28720 of2008 has to be dismissed on the sole ground that thepetitioners do not meetthe twin requirements of beingpersonal cultivation /possession of the ''(2007) 3 ALT 265
ll
AAK.J $.P Nos.2E720/200E & 9027,'2009
I
subject land as onO 1. 1 7.7973 and also that they dr' not fit into the categories ofpersonsenvisagedunderSection4 to 8 of the Act' That insofar as the contentionof the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits of Section43 of the Transferof Property Act is concerned, in view of the rivalclaimsmadeunder different registered sale deeds, thequestionas to whose sale is valid or not can oniy be gone into by the CivilCourt ancl, it is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and seel. theirremedies under civil law. But, thequasi-judicialofficercalnot go intothe question as to whether thepetitioners are tht:successors-in- interest based on the registered saledeed executeCin their favour by the original inamdars in favour of theirveni ors prior to the issuance of ORC. The learned counsel for thepetitionershas relied on Tanu Ram Bora v. Pramod Ch.flaslr, Ashokv. Annapurnal2 and Ram Pyare v. Ram Narainr3.There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition laid dorvn in the above decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court andtht: Hon'bleHigh Court of Karnataka. But, as held above, thisCcurt sitting under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India cann,rtgo intothose disputed questions of facts and decide as to whois having a better title.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,this Court does not iind any merit in writpetition No. 28720 of 2008 or grounds to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving; it open tothe
" 12ets1+ scc 173
'220 17 scc online Kar 4483
'r(198s) 2 scc162
W .f .I!}s.2d /zu/zwd a<, 9027 /2009
I
petitioners to agitate their rights and seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court_
Insofar as W.p. No.9O2Z of 2OO9 is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the order granting ORC in favour of the unolficial respondents is held to be valid by this Court. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is only after grant of the ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents and the change of entries in the name of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.9027 ol 2OO9 is only a consequential one. The entries in the revenue records do not confer or divest a person of his rights and are for fisca1 purpose. The entries are always amenable to the final orders, as the writ petition filed challenging the grant of ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents in W.p.No.28Z2O of 2008 is dismissed, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
NOTE: That the Page No.11 of the Common Order OateO t+.00.2021 ln W.P.Nos.2872]of 2008 & 9027 of 2009 is substitutedas per the Ordersof Hon'ble Court dated 02.08.2021in W.P.Nos.28720 of 2008 & 9027 of 2009.
This amended order shallsubstitute the earlier order which has alreadybeen dispatched on 09.07.2021
Sd/- K. ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One fair copy toTHE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICEA' ABHISHEK REDDY ' iFor His LordshiP's Kind Perusal)
CHR sab Y- ,,?
HIGHCOURT
DATED:1410612021 0210812021
AMENDEDCOMMON ORDER
WRIT PETITIONNos.28720of 2008 and 9027 of 2009
1tl 1: i.i rr::
:)f) 08 ir{T ?0?4 (:)
t
ft
,f,T 4,..
DISMISSING THE BOTH WRITPETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS.
t/
\0
o2<br>@
3 issues framed by the court
Were subsequent purchasers entitled to occupancy rights certificates without satisfying the statutory categories and possession requirements on the vesting date?
Could competing claims under registered sale deeds be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction?
Did consequential revenue entries warrant interference after the occupancy rights certificates were upheld?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra v. Laxman AmbajiReferred¶104
ArR 1971 sc 1859
Smt'Kannamma v' District collector, RangareddyRelied on¶104
1990(1)An.w.R.722
N, Sudershan Reddy v. Smt' Kannamma (deceased by LRs)Relied on¶104
AIR1994 AP116
B. Ramender Reddy v. District CollectorRelied on¶104
(1993(2) An.w.R. 84)
S. Narasimha v' Joint Collector-Il, Ranga Reddy DistrictRelied on¶115
zooo 1a1 nlr e+
G. VenkatItam Reddy v' NajeebunnisaoRelied on¶115
2oos (3) ALT313 (D.8.)
K. Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Government of A,p.Distinguished¶125
1978 (1) APLJ {HC) 378
S, Veera Reddy v. Ch.ChandraiahDistinguished¶125
1995 12) ALT172 (D.8.)
Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, HyderabadRelied on¶134
(2007) 3 ALT 265
Tanu Ram Bora v. Pramod Ch. flasDistinguished¶142
12ets1 + scc 173
Ashok v. AnnapurnaDistinguished¶142
20 17 scc online Kar 4483
Ram Pyare v. Ram NarainDistinguished¶142
(198s) 2 scc162
5 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Chandra Prakash
K. Aruna
The Joint Collector, Rangareddy
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division
The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar
Samala Surender Reddy
A. ABHISHEK REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
