Writ petition challenging inaction of revenue authorities regarding disposal of an appeal under the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Court directed disposal of the appeal within three months without costs.
Directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of appeal No. F1/131/2017 within three months from receipt of order copy.
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 FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special OriginalJ urisdiction)
MONDAY, THEFOURTEENTH DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESE NT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY
WRIT PETITIONNO:7664OF 2022
Between:
R Anitha. D/o. Ra ohunandan Reddv,aqed about 47 yrs. OccBankOtficer' RJo.H.No.9-5-82,S 6t Cotony. Chamapet,Saroornagarl''landal,Hyderabao
,.,PETITIONER
AND
,..RESPONDENTS
Petition underArticte 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order,or direction more parlicularly onein the natureof writof Mandamus declaring theactionof the respondent No.2and 3 in not disposing the pettlioners Appeal No.F1113112017 filed U/s24 of AP (T'A ) Abolitionof lnams Act' '1955 against theorders of the 4th respondentin FileNo J/5611/2007 dated29/1 1/2008in respect ofland in Sy No.213 and 214 admeasuringAc1 10 gts situated at Injapur Village, Hayathnagarl,4andal,Rangareddy Districtas itlegal' arbitrary and contraryto law and violationof principlesof naturaliustice'besides violative of Articles 14 and 300-4 of theconstitutionof India and consequently directthe respondentNo 2 and 3 to dispose theabove said AppealNo F11131l2o17
IA NO: 1 OF2022
Petition underSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedin supportof the petition,theHighCourt may be pleasedto dlrect the respondentNo.2and 3 to take immediate stepsto disposethe petitioners Appeal Case No.FL113112017tiled U/s. 24 ol lhe A P (T A-) Abolition of lnamsAct' 1955in
r
respect of land in Sy.No. 213 admeasuring Ac, 0.'14 gts and Sy.No. 214 admeasuring
Ac. 0.36 gts situated at lnjapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. INDRASENA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
iI
//
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.No.7664 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard leamed counsel ibr the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that appeal filed by her under Section 24 ol tlre A.P (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (flor short 'the Act') before respondent No.3, challenging the orders passed by respondent No.4 datcd 29. I 1.2008 in llle No.J/561 l/2007 in respect of land in Sy.Nos.2l 3 and 2 14. adrneasuring Acs. I - I 0 Gts.. situated at Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distnct, is not being disposed of by respondent No.3. 3. According to the petitroner, subject lands are classified as Mafi Inam land as is evidenced from the entries in khasrapahani for the year 1954-55. Originally, one Syed Mohammed Sab was inamdar and possessor of the subject lands. Application in Form-I under Section 4 of the Act was submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC). The Mandal Revenue Officer submitted report dated 02.08.1991 vide letter No.D/3837/9 I stating that the subject lands are classified as Mafi Inam and the name of Syed Mohantrncd Sab was rocortled as inamdar and as per thc pahani for the year 1913-71. thc name D.llal Reddy was shown as possessor. It was tufther reported that there are no protected tenants and there are no civil litigations pending over the subject land. Respondent No.2 issucd notice in Form-[I calling for objections frorn
t_
<br>
the interested persons. None of the parties have filed objections. Mohd.Sharfuddin, who appeared in person, submitted sworn affidavit deposing that his father Syed Mohammed Sab died 20 years back and he is alone entitled for grant of ORC, being his legal heir. During the course of enquiry, D.Bal Reddy appeared in person and deposed before respondent No.2 that Syed Mohammed Sab was the inamdar of the subject lands. His iather cultivated the subject iands tbr some years on lease basis and he surrendered the subject land to inamdar long back and inamdar's son Shar.f'uddin is cultivating the subject land and paying land revenue. Though his natre was recordcd as possessor in the revenue records, he was not cultivating tlie lands on the crucial date i.e.,01.11.1973 and he has no objecrion fbr grant of ORC in favour of Mohd Sharfuddin. Respondent No.2 granted ORC in favour Mohd.Sharfuddin vide orderi dated 01.02.1992. Based on the said orders, Mohd.Sharfuddin was implemented in Inam Ijafa, as per the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer in proceedings No.B/I31g/92 dated 29.06.1992. Later, he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds. Mohd.Sharfuddin sold an extent of Acs.0- 12 Gts., in Sy.No.2l3 (out of Acs.0-14 Gts.,) and Acs.0-36 Gts., in Sy.No.214, total admeasuring Acs. l -08 Cts., situated at Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, in lavour of llojja Laxma Reddy through a registered sale deed vide docunrenr bearing No.427 ol 2006 dated 10.01.2006. Based on the said sale dccd, the namc ol'Bojja Laxma Reddy was mutated in the revcnue records vide lrrocs. No. 8/369/2006 dated 21.08.2006 by the then Mandat Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar.
I
/
Bojja Laxma Reddy exccutcd an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney vide document bearing No.13687 of 2006dated 30.08.2006 in favour of Yelleti Srinivas Reddy forsale ofAcs.O-12 Gts., of land in Sy.No.213 and Acs.0-36 Gts., in Sy.No.214,total admeasuring Acs.l-O8 Gts., situated atInjapur Village.The said Bojja Laxma Reddy, represented bygeneral power ofattomey, Yelleti Srinivas Reddy, sold an extent ofAcs.0-12 Gts., in Sy.No'2l3 and Acs.0-30 Gts., in Sy.No.2 l4i.e., total admeasuringAcs.0l -02 Gts., situated at Injapur Village toAmireddyNarayan Reddy undera registeled sale deed vide documentbearingNo. I 6l 74 of 2006dated 29.09.2006. Thcreafier, Anrireddy NarayanReddyconvertedthe above said landsinto residential plots by providingroadsandparkand got the layout approved by lniapur CramPancahyath andhe sold the plots to various persons throughregisteredsale deeds by retaining some plots with hirn and thepetitionerpurchasedone such plot bearing No.l3 admeasuring200 sq. yardsfrom AmireddyNarayan Reddy and since the date ofpurchase, she had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same unintemrptedly.When the petitioner started construction ofcompoundwall, shecame to know about the orders of respondent NoJin FileNo.J/5611i2007 dated 29.11.2008. Later,appeal was filed by the petitionerin case No.Fl/131/2017 challenging theorders of respondentNo.4 in File No.J/561/2007 dated 29.11.2008along withcondone delay application. RespondentNo.3 issuednolice to tlle respondent therein on 01.04.2009 by tiringthe datcof hearingof appeal as 27.04.2019'
1
The hearing has taken place and respondent No.3 reserved the appeal for orders. However, in the meanwhile, respondent No.3 was transferred and the new offiier did not take up hearing of the appeal. Of late, peritioner submitted represenration dated 01.11.2021, requesting respondent No.2 to rcopen the appeal ancl fbr issuing a direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the appcal. However, appeal is nol being disposed ol.
SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
NPBS+
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410212022
ORDER
WP.No.7664 of 2022
E SIAf!'
(
A
^ I!u r .,'r - ,..'" il77 LLLL
"L
.1
a-/
..
.,/
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS.
IF,,
t.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the respondent to dispose of the pending appeal filed under Section 24 of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
Whether the petitioner's appeal challenging the inam orders is barred by limitation or otherwise maintainable.
What direction can be issued regarding the disposal of the appeal pending before the Joint Collector.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R Anitha
State of Telangana
District Collector
Joint Collector
Revenue Divisional Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
