Dismissed

S.Hari Babu and 3 Ors. v. the Joint Collector-Ii, Rr District and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC27 Mar 2023CRP/6095/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order setting aside an Occupancy Rights Certificate. The Court held the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction for non-agricultural land, which falls under Section 9 of the Inam Abolition Act requiring a Special Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned orders of the Joint Collector in their entirety.

S.Hari Babu and 3 Ors. Vs the Joint Collector-Ii, Rr… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO: 6095 OF 2010

¶6

Petition under Section 28 of the A-P. (TA) lnams Abolition Act,^'1955 R/w Section 115 of C.P.C., 1908, aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in Case No. F118051/2008, on the file of the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Order dated 17.10.2005 passed in File No. L1203112005 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.Hari Babu, S/o.S.A.Chowdary, Rl/o.Flat No.303, Sardar Apartments, Chintal Basti, Khalratabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

S-Lakshminarayana, S/o.Subba Rao Ri/o.Doppakpudi Village, Guntur District.

¶10

T.Satyanarayana, S/o.Hanumaiah R/o.10-61, Subash Nagar, Balanagar Township, Hyderabad.

¶11

T.Srikanth Babu, S/o.T.Satyanaruyana [Petitoners 2lo 4 arc rep by their GPA holder P1l R:/o.10-61, Subash Nagar, Balanagar Township, Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3-6

¶13

ANO

¶14

1 The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division O/o.Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

R2- dismissed for default vide court order dated 26-12-2011 .

¶17

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

S.Pandu, S/o,Late Swamy, Rl/o.lndiranagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶21

CRPMP. NO: 8100 OF 2010

¶22

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the order daled 10.12.2010 in Case

¶23

No.F118051/2008 passed by the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy Drstrict, pending. dispsoal of the above Crvil Revision Petrtion.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri D. SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. BHASKARA CHARY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

'.:

¶28

,/2,

¶29

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY} CTVIL REVISION^{PETITION NO.6095 0F 20lo} ORDER:

¶30

This civil revision^{petition isfiled by the} petitioners/ respondent^{Nos.3 to 6 underSection 28 of AP} (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition^{Act, 1955 (for short 'the} Inam Abolition Act,^{1955') read with Section 115 of Civil} Procedure Code (for short^{'CPC') questioningthe validity} and legality of the orders^{datedlO.l2.2OlO inCase} No.F1/8051/2008 before^{the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga} Reddy District wherein the^{orders of Revenue Divisional} Officer, Chevella in^{hle No.L/203 1/2005, dated 17'10'2005} granting Occupancy Rights^{Certificate inrespect of} Sy.Nos.48 and.49 of^{Gachibowli Villageis declaredas void'}

¶31

Feeling aggrieved by^{the ordersdated} lO.I2.2OlO of the^{learned Joint Collector-ll,Ranga Reddy} District this civil^{revision petition is filed by the respondent} Nos.3 to 6 atleging^{that they have approached the Revenue} Divisional Officer,^{Chevellafor grant of OccupancyRights} Certificate in^{respectof Sy.Nos.48 and 49 in an extentof} 37 lz guntas situated^{at Gachibor'r'li Village,Serilingam-}

I'agc 2 of l-.i

AVR,J CRP 6o95 zoro

pally Mandal, Ranga Redd.v, District, on receipt of the application also considcring the objections filed by the 4trr respondent-S.pandu Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in their favour. lrr-fact, the 4th respondent has sold the land in issue to the revision petitioners by executing registered sa_le deed document bearing No.9226 of 1990, dated 23.07. 1990. The 4rn respondent has also filed Wp No.5569 of 2006 wherein he categorically admitted about the said sale transaction. After purchasing the said iand, the revision petitioners have raised mango and orange gardens, dug a bore ,r,ell, constructed a room which is assessed by the municipality by assigning municipal number to it. The findings ol the learned Joint Collector are not correct, they are beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 24 of t]ne Inam Abolition Act, 1955 and as such prayed to set aside the orders impugned dated lO. 12.2010 passed by the learned Joint Collector_Il, Ranga Reddv District.

¶36

.) This civil revision petition is dismissed against the 2"d respondent as per the orders dated 26.12.2011 ,l-ffie of^granting ample opportunity there was no

¶37

AVR,,J CRP 6o95-zoto

¶38

Pagc -i ol i --i

¶39

representation^{on behalf of o lficial respondentNos' I and 3} as well as unofficial^{respondentNo'4' Accordingly'it was} treated as heard^{and reservedfor orders'}

¶40

In the light of^{the contentionsraised by the} learned counsel^{for revision petitioners/respondent Nos'3} to 6 the following^{point would arise for consideration:}

¶41

Whether the orders impugned^{dated 10'12'2OlOin} Case No.Fl/8051/2008^{passedby the Joint Collector-Il,} Ranga Reddy District^{settingaside the orders of the} Revenue Divisional^{Officer,Chevella in} lile No.Ll2O3l /2005, dated^{17.10.2005 are sustainableor} warrants interference^{by this Court?}

¶42

Point :

¶43

The admitted^{or undisputed facts of the case} are that the revision^{petitioners/respondentNos'3 to 6} have been claiming the^{land inSy-Nos.48 and 49 of} Gachibowli Village atleging^{that the said land was} purchased by them.^{In-fact, they have also filed a suit in} O.S.No.59 of^{1996 on the file of the iearnedPrincipal} Junior Civil^{Judge Westand South, RangaReddy District} and the sarne^{was decreed on 02.06.200|'Feeling}

¶44

a:n

¶45

I)agc4oll-i

¶46

AVR,.J CRP^(>o95 :oro

¶47

aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the 4rh respondent herein-S.pandu has preferred an appeal in AS No.44 of 2OOl on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy and the learned District Judge allowed the said appeal as per the judgment dated 05.02.2004. However, assailing the said judgment and decree dated 05.02.2OO4 in AS No.44 of 2OO1 the revision petitioner No. t has filecl second appeal vide SA No.5g2 of 20O4 pending on the fije of this Court. Mearu,hile, the revision petitioners have approached the Revenue Divisional Of{icer, Chevella and obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the suit schedule propert-y situated in Sy.Nos.48 /P and 49.

¶48

The specific case of the revision petitioners is that they have purchased the said land totally admeasuring 3Z vz guntas covered by Sy.Nos.4g and 49 through a registered sale deed document bearing No.9226 of 1990, dated 23.07. 1990 and another extent of 3g % guntas, they have obtainecr a registered Generar power of Attorney vide document No. ISZ2 of l99l and they have ratse d teak, mango, orange gardens etc., ald in l99O itself

¶49

AVR,J CRP 6o95 zolo

¶50

Pagc 5 of l3

¶51

the entire premises^{was assigned by municipalitywith door} No.l-72/a/A and that^{they have been paying the Property} Tax. It is the further^case of^{the revisionpetitionersthat} they have developed the said land^{into 13 plots, sold them} to 12 different purchdsers and^{deliveredvacant possession} and retained one such plot with^them.

¶52

As stated above, the revision petitioners,^based on the above stated documents fiied O.S.No.59 of^{1996 and} the said suit was decreed on 02.06.2000. Thereafter,^the respondents have filed AS No.44 ol 2OOl, it was decreed, assailing the same the revision petitioners have filed SA No.582 of 2OO4. In the meanwhile, they have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate. It is also^pleaded by^the revision petitioners as to filing of writ petitions by both^the parties. The orders of the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Chevella in File No.Ll2O3l /2OO5, dated^{17 .IO.2OOS} granting Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of^the revision petitioners were assailed by the^{4th respondent} before the learned Joint Collector and^{as per the orders} dated lO.l2.2OlO in file No.Ll2031 /2OO5,^dated

a-l

l'aec 6 ol li

AVR,I CRP 6o95 zoro

17 .10.2OO5 the learned ,Joint Collector-Il set aside rhe said orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer hotding that the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 4 of the Inam Abolition Act is not permissible in respect of the lands covered by structures ard in the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer by the order impugned granted occupancy Rights certificate in respect of the rands which are not put to agricultural use and the same is u,ithout jurisdiction and void ab-initio. Accordingly, declared the orders dated 17. lO.2OOS in file No.L/2O31 /2OOS, granting Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Gachibowli as void and the appeal was accordingll. disposed of.

¶57

It is the admitted case of the revision petitioners that the land in question i s covered by structures and it was assigned with municipal number vide House No. l_ 72 / 4 / A. It is also the further case of the revision petitioners that they have developed the said land into 13 plots and sold 12 plots to different purchasers and delivered vacant possession. Thus, undisputedly the land _._sova-ered^by the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in file

¶58

AVR,I CRP 6o95 :oto

¶59

Page 7 o1 13

¶60

No.L/2O3I /2OO5, dated^{17 .lO-2005inrespect of} Sy.Nos.48 arrd 49 of^{Gachibowli is a non-agricultural land} covered by structures.

¶61

The revision petitioners have^{hled this petition} under Section 28 of the^{Inams AbolitionAct.The Act} contemplates adjudication of the matters^{in relationto} grant of Occupartcy Rights Certificates, enquiry^{into the} nature and history of the lands,^{determination of} compensation payable to inamdars and apportionment thereof etc. Be it stated that under Sections⁴ to 8^{of the} Act the power to register inams, Kabiz-e-kadim or^tenants of different kinds as occupants over Inam land is^conferred with the Collector, the enquiry under taken under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act results in passing of an order^under Section 10 of the Act. Similarly, Section 9^{of the Act} provides for adjudication of disputes in relation^to the^Inam lands used for non-agricultural^purposes or^buildings thereon. Sub-section⁽²⁾ of^{Section 24 of tlre Act mandates} that the claims^{coveredby Section 9 shallbe referred to the} "prescribed authority". As^per GOMs.No.1613,^Revenue (F) 03. 12.1975 special Tribunals consisting of^{the District}

l)age 8 of l3

A/R,J CRP^(rog5 :oro

and Sessions Judges in all the Districts of Telangana Area having the jurisdiction over the local area of the respective districts were constituted by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 23 of the Inams Abolition Act.

¶66

At this stage. it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 9 of Inam Abolition Act and Rule Ig 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 who 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 9, it has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 2ae) and the decision of such prescribed authority is final. Though the term 'prescribed atrthority, is not defined in the Act of 1955 in relation to Section 24(l) and (2), Rule lg of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Rules, 1975, -^{shedslight on this aspecr.}

AVR,I CRP 6o95 zoro

Pagc9ol-13

"Rule-l8 authority under^{Section24:- (1) For the} purpose of sub-section (l) of^{Section 24 tl.e District} Collector shall be the^{prescribedauthority'(2) For the} purpose of sub-section⁽²⁾ of^{Section24 the Special} Tribunal shall be the^prescribed authority"'

¶71

This Court in AP Punjabi^{Sabha,Hyderabad v.} Joint Collector, Hyderabad Districtl^dealingwith identical facts as to issuance of Occupancy^Rights Certificate in respect of non-agricultural lands and^the scope of enquiry held in paragraph Nos.17 and^{18 as} under:

¶72

" 17 .^{^fhe} term^{'agricultural} or non-agricultural purposes' is not dehned under the Act. However, for the purpose of Section 9, it is sufficient if the^land is put to non-agricultural^purposes. The reason^or justihcation is outside the scope of enquiry under the provisions of the Act. The Collector will assume jurisdiction to decide the claims under Section I 0 only, if the lands were put to agricultural^use. Though in form I, the relevant date^{is mentionedas} 20.O7.1955, in view of subsequent^legislative changes and^{judicialpronouncements,the crucial} date now stands as 01.11.1973. In^{Sections4 and} e expression^{'cultivates personally'} is^uscd,

'(2004)^{5 ALD644}

Page l0 ol i 3

AVR.I CRP 6o95 zoro

wlrercirs in sectiorrs 6,7 and g, the expression 'under his personal cultivation, is employed. They constrtute the junsclictional facts, for exercise of pou,er under Section l O. An inamdar, Kazim_e_ kadirn or tenitnt ma. have an excellent ground or justifir:ation, lor not undertaking activities of cultivation in the inam lands. But once such land is found to be not unclcr cuitivation, the Collector ceases to have power to deal with the same under Sectiorr 1O. Furthcr, the contesting respondents clearly stated that the land is put to nonagricull uraJ purposes.

¶78

In its wisdom, tlte legislature mandated that the adjudication of the claims in relation to the buildings and non-agricultural inam lands, be, undertaken by a specialized forum, and not by the Collector. That being the case, it was not open to the second respondent. to have entertained the application submitted by the contesting respondents under Sect ion 4 of the Act. It is pointed out by the learncd senior counsel that this objection was not raised beforc respondents I and 2. From a reading rtf the order passed by the first respondent, it is evirlent that a spr:cihc ground, as to lack of jurisdiction for entcrtaining the application under Section I 0 u,as raisecl. Bc that as it may, even if it is assurned th.lt t he ground u,as not raised pointeclly. being a qrrcstion of law, that too, touching rhe jurisdir.tion of the authority, the same

¶79

AVR,J CRP 6o9-, zttto

¶80

Page lt of l--i

¶81

{

¶82

can be taken note of^{by this Court.Since it is found} that the second^{respondent did not have the} jurisdiction to entertain the application filed^under Section 4 of the Act, in^{respect of the lands in} question, the order passed by him^{as well as the} one passed in appeal by the^{first respondentare} liable to be set aside."

¶83

A Division Bench of this Court in^K.Chandra Sekhara Rao (diedf Per LRs. and others^v'District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and^others2 in paragraph No.20 held as under^:

¶84

"2O. Viewed thus, when the 'District Collector'^is brought in as an appellate authority under Section 24(1\ only by the description of the 'prescribed authority' stipulated under Rule 18(1) of the Rules of 1975, reference to an order passed by the 'Collector' in Section 24(l) cannot be^{intended to} mean the order of the District Collector, the prescribed appellate authority, but only to the order of the 'Collector', the primary authority. Similarly, Section 24(21 deals with determination of the question as to whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9 of the Act of 1955.^The issue would necessarily have to be dealt with by^the 'Collector', the primary authority, which^would mean the Deputy Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer, and when a^question arises before^{him as to} I

¶85

'^{u o ro} 1o;^{et.r :oo}

I'agc I2 of-l.l

AVR,J CRP_6o95,zoro

whether a partrclrla r building or land falls within [hc scope ol Secrion 9 of the Act of 19SS, he is requirecl to refer it to the prescribed authority under Section 24(2) and the decision of such prescribed authority is conferre d rvith finality. Rule 1g(2) of the Rules of Ig75 provides that the prescribed authoritv for thc purpose of Section 24(2) is the Special Tribunal. Necclless to state, reference by the Depug' Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer, the priman, authorib-, under Section 24(2) would not be a decisior-r but a procceding taken by the Collector, in terms of Section 2g and is sought to be excluded from the ambit of thu revisionary remedy provided thereunder."

¶90

In-fact, the leamed Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, relving on the principles laid in Ap punjabi Sabha 11"t cited supra) arri'ed at a conclusron that the Revenue Divisional Ofhce r has no jurisdiction under Section 4 of Inam Abolition Act to cause enquiry into the matter of issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the lands rvhich are not put to agricultural use and the same is u.ithout j urisdiction. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned ,Joint Collector', Ranga Reddy District in the \ orclers impugnt:d dated 1O l2.2O1O since the lands in

¶91

AVR,I CRP_6o95 zoro

¶92

Pagc l3 of l3

¶93

question are put to^{non-agricultural purposes-} Undisputedly the^{land was convertedinto plots and} municipal number is^{alsoassiSnedto such plots vide Door} No.l-72/a/A. The^{RevenueDivisional Officer, Chevella has} no^jurisdiction to cause^{enquiry and the jurisdictionunder} Section 9 of the Act^{vested with the Special Tribunal} constituted under Section^{24(2) of the Act tocause} necessary enquiry and^{hence, the order impugned does not} warrant interference by this Court^{and accordingly,this} civil revision^{petition is liable to be dismissed.}

¶94

14 . In the result this civil^{re'risionpetition} IS dismissed confirming the^{impugnedordersdated} LO.I2.2OIO in Case^{No.Fl/8051/2008 before the Joint} Collector-Il, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict in its entirety.}

¶95

However, in the circumstances^{of the case,}

¶96

there shall be no order as to^{the costs. Miscellaneous}

¶97

applications, if anY P^{ending, shall stands closed.}

¶98

//TRUE COPY//

¶99

Sd/. G. SIREESHA ASSTSTANTSEGISTRAR g

¶100

SECTIOiil OFFICER