Remanded

V. Krishnaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC27 Mar 2023CRP/387/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Civil Revision Petition was filed to assail an order dismissing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The High Court directed remittal of the matter to the Special Tribunal constituted under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955, as the dispute regarding non-agricultural land fell under Section 9 requiring adjudication by the prescribed authority.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in CMA No.259 of 2007 was set aside and matter remitted to the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, for necessary enquiry under Section 9 of the Act.

V. Krishnaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I I I I II ! i I I i :

¶2

l I

¶3

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY}

¶7

CIVIL REVISION^PET ON NO:387 F 2011

¶8

Petition under Anicle 227 of^{the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order} dated. 15.07.2010^{passed in c_M.A.No.259of 2007 on the file of the court of theI} Additional District Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District,at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

V. Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Chennaiah,^{Occ. Employee, Ri./o.Yennapally Village'} Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District,}

¶11

V. Kalappa Chary, S/o. Late^{Chennaiah,Occ.Business,Rl/o. Yennapally} Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶12

...Petitioners (Appellants/Appellants)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶15

The Secretary, Anantha^{Padmanabha Swamy College, Vikarabad.}

¶16

...Respondents(Respondents/Respondents)

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. T PARIPURNA CHARY}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI A. ANANTHSEN REDDY(NoI Present)}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

¶21

1 lr ! i ! Ii II

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY} CTVIL REVIS^{ION PETITION NO. 347oF 2011}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This civil^revision Petitlon^{isfiled bY the} petitioners/ appellants^{under Article 227 of} the Constitution^{of India assaiiing the ordersdated 15'O7'201O} in CMA^{No.259 of 2OO7 beforethe learned t Additional} District^{Judge, RangaReddl'District}

¶25

The revision Petittoners^{have filed CMA No'259} of 2OO7^{before the learned IAdditional District Judge'} Ranga^{Reddy Districtassailing theordersdated} lO.O4.2OO7^{in Case No'Fl/1703 l2OO5 before the Revenue} Divisional^{Officer, VikarabadHowever' the learned I} Additional^{DistrictJudge hasdismissecl thecivil} miscellaneousappealholdingthattheappellantswere supposed^{toapproachthe SpeciatTribur.ral in diflercnt} proceedings^{and the present appealis not maintainablein} the form^{of CMA and is liableto be dismissed,r'r'ithout} prej udice to^{their rights to approachthe said Tribunal} un<ler Section^{18(2) oi AP (Telangana Area) Abolitiono[}

¶26

AVR,J CRP_387 zorr

¶27

Page2ofll

¶28

Inam Act, 1955 (for short the Inam Abolition Act) for adjudicating the matter under Section 2a Ql of the Act.

¶29

Notice served on the respondents but there was no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The submissions made by learned counsel for the revision petitioners have received due consideration of this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to submit that assailing the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the revision petitioners have hled a case before the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed on lO.O4.2OOZ holding that the appropriate authority is the Special Tribunal constituted under Sectio n 2ae) of Inam Abolition Act. As such, the CMA w,as filed before the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, a Special Tribunal constituted, and the same was made over to the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. But unfortunately the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy has dismissed the ._9MA^{holdingthat the presenr appeal is not maintainable in}

¶32

AVR,I CRP 1tl7 z<.rr

¶33

Pagc -i of ll

¶34

the form of CMA and it is iiable to be dismissed,^without prej udice to the rights of the appellants to approach the appropriate Tribunal constituted under Section^{18(2) of} lnam Abolition Act.

¶35

In this context, I may refer to the^schemeof lnam Abolition Act, 1955. The^{Actcontemplates} adjudication of the matters in^{relation togrant of} Occupancy Rights Certihcates,^{enquiryinto the natureand} histon' of the lands, determination^{ofcompensation} payable to inamdars and apportionment^{thereofetc. Under} Sections 4 to B of the Act the^{powerto register inams,} Kabiz e-kadim or tenants of different^{kindsas occupants} over an lnam land is conferred^{with the Collector' The} enquin' under taken^{under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act} results in^{passing of an appropriate order under Section1O} of the Act. Whereas, Section 9^{of the Act providesfor} adjudication of clisputes in^{relation to the Inam lands,used} for non-agricultural^{purposes or buildings, thereon Sub-} Section 2 of Section 24 of^{the Act mandates that the claims} covercd br, Scction 9 shall be referred^{to the "prescribed} autl-rorit-r,". Further. as per GOMs.No.1613, Revenue (F)

AVR,' CRP 387 zorr

Page4ofll

03.12.1925 the Governor of the State of Andhra pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the Inams Abolition Act, constituted Special Tribunals consisting of District and Sessions Judges in all the districts of Telangana Area of composite Andhra pradesh State for the purposes of the said Act determrning the respective districts as the local area of the jurisdiction.

¶40

At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 9 of Inam Abolition Act and Rule lg of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Rules, 1975. Section 9 of the Act of 1955 deals with vesting of private buildings and Inam lands used for non_ agricultural purposes in the persons w,ho owned the same immediately before the date of vesting. Whenever a question arises as to whether a building or land falls within the scope of section g, it has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Sectio n 2ae) and the decision of such prescribed authority is final. Though the term "prescribed authority" is not defined in rhe Act of l95s in _.qeJation^{to Section} 2afi) and (2), Rule lB of the Andhra

¶41

AVR,] CRP-j87-zotr

¶42

Pagc5olll

¶43

Pradesh^{(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Rules'1975} (hereinafter,^{the Rules of 1975), shedslight on this aspect'}

¶44

" I 8. Authority^{under Section 24:- (1) Forthe} purpose of^{sub-Section( 1) ofSection 24th e District} Collector^{shall be the prescribedauthority' (2) For the} purpose of^{sub-section (2) ofSection24the Specral} Tribunal^{shatl be the prescribedauthority"'}

¶45

Reverting^{back to the facts of the case on hand'} it is the^{specific case of the revision petitioners that the} revisiot-r^{petitlonersare the absolute owners and pattadars} ol thc^{land in Sr' No 75 to an extentof Ac'6'O0 situatedat} Gangerrarn^{Vrllage,Vikarabad Mandal' it is service inam} landandther<,r,isionpetitionersarethelega-lheirsolthe inamdar.^{The2nd respondent SecretarSr ofAnanta} Padmanabha^{Srvam-'College'Vikarabad has purchased the} land from^{inmdar viz V Chinnaiah of YernapallyVillage} vide clocument^{No 237 ol 1972 dated O6'O4 '7972 ar'd as} per the ordcrs^{of the Joint Coliector' Ranga ReddyDistrict} ancl zrs^{per tl'rc report of the MRO' Vikarabad the said land} - s'as^{purchascclbl thc 2n(l respondentAnanta Padmanabha}

¶46

AVR,,J CRP_387_zorr

¶47

Page6ofll

¶48

Swamy College, Vikarabad and it is in possession of the said land, it is kept fallow. Accordingly, the learned Joinr Collector relying on the principles laid by this Court in Ap Punjabi Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad Districtr held that it is not open to the Revenue Divisional Oflicer to exercise the powers under Section 9 of Ap Inam Abolition Act ald the same shall be referred to the "prescribed authority" and for the said purpose under Section 2aQ) a Special Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government as per GOMs.No.1613, Revenue (F) dated O3.12.1975. Accordingly, the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated. 22.O2.2OO2 granting Occupanc-v Rights Certihcate in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.6.0O situated at Gangaram Village was set aside and the parties were directed to approach the Speciat Tribunal for appropriate remedy.

¶49

Therefore, the revision petitioners have approached the Principal District Judge of composite Ranga Reddy District and liled CMA No.259 of 2007 but tl_re same u,as dismissed through the impugned order by '^(trtolt : .qt-o o.l,l

¶50

AVR,I CRP_187 zou

¶51

l)aqeTolll

¶52

the tearned^{IAdditionalDistrict Judge, Ranga Reddy} District with^{the follou'ing observations in paragraph No'8} of the imPugnetl^orders:

¶53

"8. When the^{revenuerecordclearly} speaks that^{the schedule property is of non-} agricultur:el^{land ancl when thesarne is} disputir.rg bv^{the appellar-rtsherein filing of the} present ci',,i1^{miscellaneous appeal is not the} proper form as^{the appellants are supposed to} approach^{tl-re SpeciatTribunal in adifferent} proceedings.^{So the present appeal isnot} maintainable^{in its form and the CMA is liable} to be disnrissed^{tvithout prejudice to the rights} of the appellants^{to approach the said Tribunal} is constitlrtcd^{U/ s.1 8(2) of A'P'(T A') Abolition of} Inams Act.^{I g55 for adjudication of the matter} U ls.2aQl^{ol the Act "}

¶54

Ot-t it^{careful cxamination of the entire scheme} of Inam^{Abotition Act. 195'5 itis found that Section10} creates forttm^{for detcrmirration of entitlements in respect} of Sections '1^{to B. rvhereasScction 9 of the Act provides for} adjudication^{of the disputes in relation to the Inam Lalds} used for^{non agricultur:rl pltrpose or buildingsthereon'} Sub Section^{(21 of Scction 24 mandates that the claims}

¶55

AVR,] CRP 387_:ou

¶56

PageSofll

¶57

covered by Section 9 shajl be referred to the prescribed authority. For better appreciation section 24 0f the Act is extracted as under :

¶58

"24. (ll Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under section l0 may, within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final.

¶59

(2) If any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of section 9 the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final."

¶60

I l. Section 24 (1) gives right of appeal againsr the orders passed by the authority constituted under section 10 of the Act to determine the questions enumerated in Sections 4 to g of the Act. Similar enquiry for recognition of status and conferment of rights in respect of private buildings and non agricultural Iands is to be conducted under Section 9 by an authority provided for under SubSection (2) of Section 24 of tine Act. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the rights in respect of agricultural -l'dnds provided for under Sections 4 to g on the one hand

AVR,,J CRP_387_zou

l)acc 9 of ll

t i

and those in respect of non-agricultural lands and buildings, under Section 9 of the Act on the other hand.

¶65

In the instant case admittedly the land was sold in the year 1972 to the 2^d respondent Ananta Padmanabha Su'am_r, College' and it was kept fallow. As per the report of the Tahsildar the land is put to use for nonagricultural purposes :rs such, the^jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer r-rnder Section 4 of the Act to cause enquiry is ousted iind he has no^jurisdiction to issue any such Occupancr Rish t s Certificate in respect of^the said land. Accordingl,t, thc learned Joint Collector^has rightly set aside thc ortlers ol the Revenue Divisional Officer directing thc pilrt r('s to approach the^Special Tribunal constituted underr Section 24(21 of the^Act. However, the Special Tribunal Ranga Reddy District^has dismissed the CMA rr.ithout recording any findings on this aspect.

¶66

Therefore. lor all the reasons stated above I am of the considered vierv that ir is a fit case for remittance to +he Special Tribunal_ Be ir stated that consequent to

AVR,/ CRP_387_zou

Page l0ofll

I I

,iIi J n I I

I II i

carving out of new Judicia.l Districts w.e.f . 02.06.2022 Vikarabad Judicial District is carved out coterminous with the Revenue District as such, the matter has to be remitted to the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad for causing necessary enquiry as contemplated under Section 9 of Inam Abolition Act, 1955. Learned principal District Judge, Vikarabad, w,hich is a Special Tribunal pursuant to the GOMs No.t613 Revenue (F), dated 03.12.1975 shall cause necessary enquiry as contemplated under section g of the Act keeping in view of the principles laid by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Executive Offrcer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnegar District v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others2 and Ap Punjabi Sabha, Hyderabad 13.a cited supra) and determine the rights of the parties.

¶73

In the result, this civil reyision petition is disposed of, rhe orders impugned dated 15.07.2010 in CMA No.259 of 2OOZ on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the learned

¶74

(201,i ) 1 .\l.I 8r

AVR,I CRP 3E7 u orr

I'agc llof ll

Principal District Judge. Vikarabad, specral rribunar constituted pursuant to the GOMs No. 1613 Revenue (F), dated 03.12.1975 for 62u5rng necessary enquiry under Section 9 of the Act and to determine the rights of the parties.

¶80

Hor,r,ever, in the r:ircumstances of the case, there shail be no order as ro the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

¶81

Sd/- MOHAMMED ISMAIL //TRUECOpy//^{ASS|STANTREGISTRAR} To, SECT|ON oFF|CER 1. The lAdditional Diskict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRt. T pARtpURNA CHARY, Advocare [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRt. A ANANTHSEN REDDi, nJr".ri"'fOpUCi 4. Two CD Copies MMK

NJB dr^^n

I l! I I I

HIGH COURT

AVR, J

DATED:2710312023

ORDER