Dismissed

Chinnaboyina Shantamma, (died per LRs) v. Joint Collector and Addl. Dist Magistrate

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WA/567/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three Writ Appeals challenging orders of the Single Judge in land and revenue disputes involving an Inam Act. The bench concurred with the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeals as there were no errors in the lower court's finding of jurisdictional defects and failure to prove occupancy.

What did the court decide?

The three Writ Appeals were dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Chinnaboyina Shantamma, (died per LRs) Vs Joint… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

[^32es ]

t I

I I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶9

WRIT APPEAL Nos: 105, 135 and 567 of 2009

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO: 105 OF 2009

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause l5 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 07-1^'1- 2008 in W.P.No.2731711996 on the file of the High Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

1- Chinna Boina Shantamma, (died^per LRs)

¶14

Chinnaboina Krishna, S/o. Komaraiah, Rt/o, H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Chinnaboina Rajaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, Rl/o. H.No. 1-A-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

Chinnaboina Pochaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, Business Rt/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad-

¶17

Chinnaboina Hanumanthu, S/o. Komaraiah, Business R/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶18

Smt. Eshwaramma, Wo. Laxmaiah, Service, Ri/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶19

Chinnaboina Mallesh, S/o. late Komaraiah, Business Rl/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶20

Smt. Veeramani, Wo. Yadagiri, House Hold, Rl/o. Gangalore Village, Sangareddy District, Medak District.

¶21

Smt. Jagadamba W/o. Manaiah^{(died per} LRs)

¶22

Bhimaiah, S/o. Manaiah, Agriculture, R/o. Kanapur Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District.

¶23

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 TO I2

¶24

AND

¶25

1 . State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by^its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2

¶28

3.'Mohd. Afzal Khan^(Died), S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rl/o. H.No. 4- 1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶29

Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab^{Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rep., by GPA} holder Basit Ahmed Khan, S/o. Mohd. Afzal^{Khan,Rl/o.4-1-9,} Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

ilr tlr

Basith Ahmed Khan, Sio. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 47 yrs, Business, Rlo 4-19, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶35

Asad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 45 yrs, Business, R/o 4-19, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶36

Javeed Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 43 yrs, Business, R/o 4- 1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER Nos. 1 TO 5

¶38

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 211 OF 2009)

¶39

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 to suspend the orders of the Learned Single Judge dated 7-1 1-2008 in WP.No. 2731711996, pending consideration of the Writ Appeal.

¶40

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1784 OF 2013)

¶41

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 to direct the respondents 4 to 7 not to make further construction over the schedule land, pending disposal of main appeal.

¶42

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1785 OF 2013)

¶43

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint the Surveyor of the Dy.Director, Survey & Land Records, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad to identify the subject lands which are in survey numbers 12, 132,74 & 75 of Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of main Appeal.

¶44

LA. NO: 3 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1930 OF 2013)

¶45

Between:

¶46

1 . Chinna Boina Shantamma, (died per LRs)

¶47

Chinnaboina Krishna, S/o. Komaraiah, . Rl/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶48

Chinnaboina Rajaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, Rl/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶49

Chinnaboina Pochaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, Business R/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶50

Chinnaboina Hanumanthu, S/o. Komaraiah, Business Fl/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶51

Smt. Eshwaramma, W/o. Laxmaiah, Service, Rl/o. H.No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶52

Chinnaboina Mallesh, S/o. late Komaraiah, Business Ri/o. H.No. 1-8-725/N2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶53

Smt. Veeramani, Wo. Yadagiri, House Hold, Rl/o. Gangalore Village, Sangareddy District, Medak District.

¶54

Smt. Jagadamba Wo. Manaiah (died per LRs)

¶55

¶56

L Bhimaiah. S/o Manaiah, Agriculture, R/o. Kanapur Village, Kohir lvlandal, lvledak District. ...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 TO 12

¶57

AND

¶58

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶59

¶60

The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad.

¶61

3 ttrlohd. Afzal Khan (Died), S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rt/o. H.No. 4- 1 -9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶62

4 Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rep., by GPA holder Basit Ahmed Khan, S/o. l.4ohd. Afzal Khan, Rl/o. 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶63

Basith Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 47 yrs, Business,No 4-19, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶64

Asad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 45^yrs, Business, R/o 4-19, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶65

7 Javeed Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, aged 43 yrs, Business, FJo 4- 1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶66

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶67

I K. Raghunath Rao S/o K.Kantha Rao, aged 55^yrs, Business , Rlol-8-7251N1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶68

K.Navaneetha Rao S/o K.Kantha Rao, aged 62 yrs, Builder, Flat No.505, Block-lV, Shanti Gardens, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

¶69

10 The Greater Hyderabad lr/unicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS/ PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 8 to 10

¶71

Petition under Rule 16-4 of Writ Rules,^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased implead the proposed respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein as a party respondent Nos.8 to 10 in the W.A.No.105 of 2009 as well as in WA.lt/.Ps.

¶72

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. V RAMESH REDDY

¶73

Counsel for the Respondents Nos' 1 & 2 : SRl. T. SRIKANTH REDDY,^{(GP FOR} REVENUE)

¶74

Counsel for the Respondent No's. 3 to 7 : SRl. O. MAHOHER REDDY

¶75

WRIT APPEAL NO:^'135 OF 2009

¶76

Writ Appeal under clause'15 of the Letters^Patent against^the order^dated 7-11-2008 in WP No. 2761211996 on the file of the^High Court.

¶77

Between:

¶78

Chinna Boina Shantamma^{(died per} LRs), W/o. Komaraiah,

¶79

Chinnaboina Krishna, S/o. Komaraiah, aged 52^yrs, Rl/o. 1-8-725/N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶80

Chinnaboina Rajaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, aged 46^yrs, Agriculture Rl/o.^1-8- 7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶81

¶82

-1

¶83

Chinnaboina Pochaiah, S/o. Komaraiah, aged 39 yrs, Agriculture R/o.^1-8- 7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶84

Chinnaboina Hanumanthu, S/o. Komaraiah, aged 36 yrs, Business R/o.^1-8- 7 251 N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶85

Smt. Eshwaramma, W/o. Laxmaiah, aged 3'l yrs, Service, Rlo. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶86

Chinnaboina Mallesh, S/o. late Komaraiah, aged 47 yrs, Business R/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶87

Smt. Veeramani, W/o. Late Yadagiri, aged 32 yrs, House Hold, R/o. Gangalore Village, Sangareddy District, Medak District. Smt. Jagadamba, W/o. Manaiah (died as per LRs)

¶88

Bhimaiah, S/o. lvlanaiah, aged 35^yrs, Agriculture, R/o. Kanapur Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District.

¶89

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 to 12

¶90

AN D 1 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad.

¶91

...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2

¶92

3 Mohd. Afzal Khan, (died) S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan,

¶93

4 Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rep. by GPa Holder Basit Ahmed Khan, S/o. Mohd. Afzal Khan, Rl/o. 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶94

5 Basith Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, Business, R/o. 4-'1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶95

6 Asad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, Business, R/o.4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶96

7 Javeed Ahmed Khan, S/o. Fazal Ahmed Khan, Business, Ryo 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶97

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER Nos. 1 to 5

¶98

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 281 OF 2009)

¶99

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 to suspend the orders of the Learned Single Judge dated 7-11-2008 in WP.No. 2761211996, pending consideration of the Writ Appeal.

¶100

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1726 OF 2013)

¶101

¶102

LA. NO: 2 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1727 OF 2013)

¶103

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 to appoint the Surveyor of the Dy.Director, Survey and Land Records, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad to identify the subject lands which are in survey

¶104

¶105

numbers 12, 132,74 & 75 of Baghlingam pally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Appeal.

¶106

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1931 OF 2013)

¶107

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 to implead the proposed respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein as a party Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in the W.A.No.135 of 2009 as well as in WA.tt/.Ps.

¶108

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. V RAMESH REDDY

¶109

Counsel for the Respondent^'l & 2 : SRl. T. SRIKANTH REDDY,^(GP FOR REVENUE)

¶110

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 : SRl. O. MANOHER REDDY

¶111

WRIT APPEAL NO: 567 OF 2009

¶112

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 7-11-2008 made in W.P.NO.1884 of 1997 on the file of the High Court.

¶113

Between:

¶114

Chinnaboyina Shantamma, (died^per LRs), Wo Komaraiah

¶115

Chinnaboyina Krishna, S/o Komaraiah, aged 52 yrs, Agriculture, Rl/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶116

Chinnaboyina Rajaiah, S/o Komaraiah aged 46 yrs, Agriculture, Rt/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶117

...APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS IN WP

¶118

Chinnaboina Pochaiah, S/o Komaraiah, aged 39 yrs, Business, Rl/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶119

Chinna boina Hanumanthu, S/o Komaraiah, aged 36 yrs, Business, Rl/o. 1-87251 N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶120

Smt. Eshwaramma, W/o. Laxmaiah, aged 31 yrs, Service, No. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶121

Chinnaboina tvlallesh, S/o late Komaraiah, aged 47 yrs, Business, Rl/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶122

Smt. Veeramani, Wo. late Yadagiri, agbd 32 yrs, Household, Rl/o.gangalore Village, Sangareddy District, I\4edak District.

¶123

Bhimaiah, S/o. Manaiah, aged 35^yrs, Agriculture, R/o. Kanapur Village, Kohir Mandal' Medak District

¶124

...APPELLANTS/ LRs of APPELLANT No.1

¶125

AND

¶126

I . Joint Collector and Additional Dist. Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.

¶127

Md. Afzal Khan, S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan, aged 61^yrs, Rl/o. Ramkote, Hyderabad.

¶128

Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan, aged 55 yrs, rep. by GPA Basit Khan, Ri/o 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶129

Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad^(lnams Tribunal)

¶130

¶131

-rI

¶132

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶133

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 605 OF 2009)

¶134

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 to grant leave to the petitioners 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and t herein to file the writ appeal against the orders in W.P.NO.1884 of 1997 dated 17-11-2O0A in aforesaid circumstances and facts of the case and pass

¶135

LA. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 1136 OF 2009)

¶136

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 to suspend the orders of the learned single^judge dated 7.11.2008 in rN.P.No.2731711996, W.P.No.27612 of 1996 and W.P.No.1884 of 1997 pending consideration of the writ appeal.

¶137

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1932 OF 2013)

¶138

Between:

¶139

1 . Chinnaboyina Shantamma, (died per LRs), Wo Komaraiah

¶140

Chinnaboyina Krishna, S/o Komaraiah, aged 52 yrs, Agnculture, Rio. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶141

Chinnaboyina Rajaiah, S/o Komaraiah aged 46 yrs, Agriculture, R/o. 1-B7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶142

...APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS in WP

¶143

Chinnaboina Pochaiah, S/o Komaraiah, aged 39 yrs, Business, R/o.^.1-8- 7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶144

Chinna boina Hanumanthu, S/o Komaraiah, aged 36 yrs, Business, Fyo.^'1-8- 7251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶145

Smt. Eshwaramma, W/o. Laxmaiah, aged 31 yrs, Service, Rlo. 1-8-7251N2, Bagh Lingampatli, Hyderabad.

¶146

Chinnaboina Mallesh, S/o fate Komaraiah, aged 47 yrs, Business, R/o. 1-87251N2, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.

¶147

Smt. Veeramani, W/o. late Yadagiri, aged 32 yrs, Household, R/o.gangalore Village, Sangareddy Diskict, Medak District.

¶148

Bhimaiah, S/o. Manaiah, aged 35 yrs, Agriculture, Rl/o. Kanapur Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District.

¶149

...APPELLANTS/ LRs of APPELLANT No.1

¶150

AND

¶151

1 Joint Collector and Additional Dist. Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶152

2 Md. Afzal Khan, S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan, aged 66 yrs, R/o. Ramkote, Hyderabad.

¶153

3 Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan, aged 55 yrs, rep by GPA Basit Khan, RYo 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

¶154

4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (lnams Tribunal)

¶155

...RESPONDENTSi RESPONDENTS

¶156

5 K. Raghunath Rao S/o K.Kantha Rao, aged 55 yrs, Business , No1-8-7251N1 , Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶157

I I

¶158

K.Navaneetha Rao S/o K.Kantha Rao, aged 62 yrs, Builder, Flat No.505, Block-lV, Shanti Gardens, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

¶159

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep- by its Commissioner, Hyderabad.

¶160

... RESPONDENTS/ PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 5 to 7

¶161

Petition under Rule^'16-A of Writ Rules, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent Nos.s to 7 herein as a party respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the W.A. No.567 of 2009 as well as in W.A.[,l.Ps.

¶162

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 2234 OF 2013)

¶163

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 to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to make further construction over the scheduled land, pending disposal of the main Appeal.

¶164

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 2235 OF 2013)

¶165

Petition under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint the Surveyor of the Dy.Director, Survey & Land Records, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad to identify the subject lands which are in Survey Numbers 12, 132, 74 & 75 of Bagh lingam^pally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Appeal.

¶166

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. V RAMESH REDDY

¶167

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 : SRl. T. SRIKANTH REDDY, (GP FOR REVENUE)

¶168

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRl. O. MANOHER REDDY

¶169

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶170

t-----

¶171

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1O5 135 and 567 of 2OO9

¶172

COMMON JUDGMENTi (Per the tlan'bte the chiel Justice uijat BLMsatL)

¶173

This order will dispose of writ appeal Nos. 105, 135 and 567 ol 2009.

¶174

Heard Mr. V.Ramesh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos. I and 2 in W.A.Nos. 105 and 135 of 2009 and respondent Nos.l and 4 in W.A.No.567 of 2009; and Mr. O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 (writ petitioners) in W.A.Nos.105 and 135 of 2009 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.A.No.567 of 2OO9.

¶175

W.A.No.1O5 of 2OO9 arises out of W.P.No.273I7 of 1996; W.A.No.135 of 2009 arises out of W.P.No.27612 of 1996 and W.A.No.567 of 2009 arises out of W.P.No.1BB4 of 1997.

¶176

W.P.Nos.27317 and 27612 of 1996 were filed bv the unofficial respondents in the writ appeals as the writ

¶177

¶178

petitioners; whereas W.P.No.1884 of 1997 was filed by the appellants. The three writ petitions ^rere decided vide a common order dated C7.11.2008. W.P.Nos.27317 and 27612 of 1996 were allowed. In so far W.P.No. lBB4 of 1997 is concerned, order dated 17.08. 1996 which was under impugnment, was set aside not at the instance ol the appellants who were the writ petitioners therein but on the finding returned that the appellants had failed to establish their entitlement for granting Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atrolition of Inams Act, 1955 (briefly, 'the 1955 Act' hereinafter).

¶179

¶180

W.P.No.27317 of 1996 was filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 as the writ petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad; W.P.No.276 12 of 1996 was filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 as the writ petitioners for quashing of order dated 04.08.199O passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad as well as the order dated 17.o8.1996 of the Joint collector, Hyderabad District; and fina1iy W.P.No.1BB4 of 1997 was filed by

¶181

_,--

¶182

! I i

¶183

appellant Nos. 1, 2 ald 3 as the writ petitioners for quashing of order dated 17.08.1996 passed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶184

Facts as can be discerned from the material papers ald the order of the learned Single Judge are quite cumbersome being long and tedious, undergoing several twists and turns. For adjudication of the present appeals, it may not be necessary for us to go deep into the facts save except those which are material.

¶185

6.1. Chinnaboina Shantamma had filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad on O8.O7.1982 claiming Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.1.00 covered by survey No.12 of Baghlingampally ('subject land' hereinafter) as a long standing tenant under the inamdar. The said application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide the order dated 24.01.1990 on the ground that there was no evidence of possession of Chinnaboina Shantamma as a tenant in the inam estate in the year 1955 though she had claimed to be in possession for more than four

¶186

¶187

decades. After dismissal of the aforesaid application vide the order dated 24.01.1990, Chinnaboina Shantamma had approached the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad with an application under Section 15(2) of the Record ol Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli (briefly, the Regulation' hereinafter) seeking rectification of the entries in the revenue records for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58 in respect of the subject land on the ground that it \vas an inam land and she was in occupation of the same for more thal forty years. She claimed her right under the 1955 Act. The said application was allowed by the District Revenue Oflicer, Hyderabad by an order dated 28.06.1990. The said order was passed on the basis of a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal.

¶188

¶189

On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 28.06.1990, Chinnaboina Shantamma, Chinnaboina Krishna and Chinnaboina Rajaiah filed the review petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad seeking review of the order dated 24.01.199O and issualce of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour under the 1955 Act in

¶190

¶191

respect of the subject land. By the order dated 04.08.1990, Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad acting on the basis of rectification of revenue records by the District Revenue Officer allowed the revieu, petition, reviewed the order dated 24.O1.1990 and granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the above persons (appellants herein).

¶192

B. Assailing thc grant of Occupancy Rights Certilicate to the appellants vide the order dated 04.08.1990, writ petitioners filed appeal under Section 24 of the 1955 Act before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The matter thereafter underwent several rounds of litigation. Be that as it may, ultimately the appellate authority i.e., the Joint Collector remanded the case back to the Revemre Divisional Officer vide his order dated 17.08.1996.

¶193

The order of the Joint Collector dated 17.08.1996 was questioned in W.P.No.2761.2 of 1996 by the unofficial respondents herein as the writ petitioners and in W.P.No.1BB4 of 7997 by the appellants herein. On the other hand, the order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the

¶194

¶195

District Revenue Officer rectifying the entries in the revenue records in favour of Chinnaboina Shantamma is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.27317 of 1996.

¶196

i0. In so far the order dated 28.O6.1990 is concerned, leaned Single Judge held as follows:

¶197

Insofar as the order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad, rectifying the entries in the revenue records is concerned, it is clear that the same was passed upon a revision petition filed by respondcnt 3 under the provisions of Section i 5(2) of the Regulation of 1358P. However, the Regulation of 1358F was repealed by Section 13 of the Act of l97l . Consequently, the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad, ought not to have entertained the application filed by respondent 3 under the repealed Reguiation for rectification of the entries. The order dated 28.06. 1990 is, therefore, inherentiy lacking in^jurisdiction and is completely devoid of the authority of law.

¶198

10.1.Thus learned Single Judge held the order dated 28.06.1990 to be illegal, being wholly without^{jurisdiction.}

¶199

As to the order dated 04.08.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer gralting Occupancy Rights Certificate^to

¶200

¶201

the appellants, learned Single Judge noted that the unsustainable order dated 28.06.1990 was the foundation for the said order. On the basis of an illegal order, no Occupancy Rights Certificates could have been granted. That apart, the said order was passed on a review petition filed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge noted that there was no power conferred upon the Revenue Divisional Officer under the 1955 Act to entertain a review petition. Adverting to decisions of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunshinghjir and Lily Thomas v. Union of Indiau, learned Single Judge held that power of review is not an inherent power. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. Power ol review is the creation of a statute. Therefore, in the absence of any provision for review in the 1955 Act, it was not open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the review petition, thereafter reviewing his own order dated 24.01.1990 and passing fresh order on 04.08.1990 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to the appellants. Though on this ground itself, order dated 04.08.1990 was liable to be set aside anf -

¶202

'^{arn tgzosc t2zt}

¶203

'^{etn 2ooo sc t6so}

¶204

¶205

quashed nonetheless, learned Single Judge went into the merit and examined the basic entitlement of the appellants to Occupancy Rights Certificate. Learned Single Judge recorded a hnding of fact that there was no mention at all in any of the proceedings that Chinnaboina Shantamma could demonstrate her status as a tenant. The inamdar under whom she claimed to be an alleged tenant Ramchander Rao never put his appearance in any of the proceedings; on the contrary there was a finding by the competent authority that he was a fictitious person. In addition thereto, learned Single Judge heid as foilows:

¶206

¶207

Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, did not examine the issue of respondents 3 to 5 asserting a claim for grant of al occupancy certifrcate basing upon the revenue records of the years 1955-58, when law required that for the said purpose, they should be in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973, which is the date on which the rest of the provisions of the Act of 1955 were brought into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In tJlis regard, the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B.Rameader Reddy v. District Collector, Hyderabad District l.1993 (21 An.W.R. 84 {DB)) relied upon by the learned counsel for tJle peLitioners, is signilicant.

¶208

¶209

---,

¶210

In the said Judgment, this Court held that notwithstalding the abolition of the inams on 20.07.1955 and vesting of such inams in the State, the rights of the Inamdar or tenant were not extinguished, provided they were in possession of tl'.e inam land on 01.11.1973, when the rest of the provisions of the Act of 1955 were brought into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This Court held that the right to get ar occupancy certificate is not correlated to the vesting of the inams in the Government. This Court further held lhat though the inam land vested in the State on 20.07.1955, if the Inamdar or the tenart was in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973, he would be entitled to occupancy rights under the Acl ol 1955.

¶211

This view was affirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in a subsequent Judgment il S.Veera Reddy v. Chetlapali Chandraiah (1995 (2) ALT 772 (DB)). In the light of the above stated legal position, as recognized and affirmed by this Court in the Judgments referred above, it is clear that ttre respondents 3 to 5 could have assertgd a right for an occupancy certificate under the Act of 1955 only by establishing their possession as on the relevartt date, which is 01.11.1973. It is apparent from the material on record that respondents 3 to 5 neither asserted nor proved that they were in possession of the subject lald as on that date-

¶212

As to challenge to the appellate order datefl* --, 17 .08.1996 is concerned, learned Single Judge held that

¶213

¶214

Joint Collector as the appellate authority had failed to

¶215

appiy his mind to the relevant facts. Finally, learned Single Judge held as follows:

¶216

On a conspectus of the legal issues and the frndings detailed hereinabove, I hold that there are material defects and lacunae in the order dated 04.08. 1990 passed by the Revenue Divisional Of{icer, Hyderabad, granting an occupancy certificate under the Act of 1955 to respondents 3 to 5 and also in the order dated 17.08.1996 passed by the appellate authority, the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, remanding t}Ie matter, without proper application of mind to the issues raised in the appezrl. Further, the order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the District Revenue Oflicer, Hyderabad, rectifying the revenue records for the years 1955-58 as sought by tie respondent 3, is found to be completely without^jurisdiction being in exercise of power conferred by a repealed enactment.

¶217

Writ Petition Nos.27317 atd 27612 of 1996 are therefore allowed. Insofar as Writ Petilion No.1884 of 1997 is concerned. the order dated 17.08. 1996 passed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, is set aside as prayed for, but for the reasons aforqstated, duly holding that respondents 3 to 5, being the petitioners therein, failed to establish their entitlement for grant of an occupancy certificate under the Act of 1955. The said wdt petition is closed with the above linding. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶218

¶219

1 3. The three related writ petitions raised highly contentious disputes between the parties. Learned Single Judge took great pains in navigating through the voluminous record and factual narration and thereafter applied the correct lega-l principles in determining legality and validity of the orders dated 28.06.1990, 04.08.1990 and 17.08.1996. For the reasons given b_v the learned Single Judge all the above three orders have been found to be wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts. Those were accordingly set aside and quashed.

¶220

I I

¶221

t4. We have no hesitation in concurring with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.

¶222

Appellants have not been able to point any error or infirmity in the views taken by the learned Single Judge. Claim of the first appellant since deceased^'as the tenant of the inamdar has been negatived by the learned Single Judge on appreciation of material facts followed by the further Iinding that the inamdar himself was a tictitious person.

¶223

¶224

¶225

That being the position,^rve find no goocl reason at all to interfere^,,vith the order passed by l.he lealned Single Judge. Consequently, there is uo merit in the three writ appeals ald those are accordingly dismisseci. However'. there shall be no order as to cost.

¶226

Miscellaneous applications, pend;ng iI any, shall

¶227

stand closed.

¶228

sD/-K.sAlLESHl /,/ , DEPUW^REGISTRAR"' //TRUE^coPY// t't''

¶229

¶230

SECTION^OFFICER

¶231

To, 2.1. iwo one CC^CCs to^{to GP SRl. V RAMESH FoR REVENU;:;ig; REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]Courttor ine stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT] 3 3y#1ffi;S-Ri^{d. MANoHERREDDY' Advocate[oPUC]} 4 5'riE A^{iI iirc. v r'r nlrncANl'Advocate[oPUC]} e. Two^{CD CoPies} R

()

HIGH COURT

DATED:2611012022

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA.Nos.105, 135 and 567 of 2009

¶238