Gouni Beesireddy @ Beesanna Vs The State of Telangana

Gouni Beesireddy @ Beesanna, S/o.Late Narayana Aged about^{62 yearsOcc.} Agriculture Ri,/o.H.No.03-03, Duvasipally village,^(Sasnool) Grampanchyath,^ltikyal Mandal, Jogulambba Gadwal District, T.S.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tank bund, Hyderabad.

¶13

2

¶14

The District Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal District, T.S.

¶15

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, rnore particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official^respondents in mutating the petitioner Name in Revenue Records and^{issuepattadarpassbook} to the petitioner in respect of lands in Sy.No.63 to an extentlAc.5-14^gts respectively, situated at Duvasipally village^(Sasnool) Grampanchyath,^ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwala District T.S. as^{illegal, arbitrary,and Violationof} Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently^{direct the official respondents} to mutate the name of the^petitioner in^{Revenue Recordsin respectof lands in} Sy.No.63 to an extent of Ac.5-14^{gts respectively, situated at Duvasipallyvillage} (Sasnool) Grampanchyath, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwala District^T.S.,in the interest of^justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under section^{151 CPCprayingthat in the circt.mstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in.support of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to} direct the respondents^{to mutate petitionername in revenue Recordsandissue} pattadar passbook to the^{petitionerin respect of lands in sy-N,r.63to an extent of} Ac.5-14 gts^{respectively,situatedatDuvasipallyvillage(Sasnool)} Grampanchyath,^{ltikyala Mandal, JogulambaGadwala D strict T S ifany} executed by the^{unofficialrespondents.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRIPRAVEEN BONKURI}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR REVENUE}

¶22

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶23

IION'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No.23280of 20/23}

¶25

oRDER:

¶26

This Writ^{Petition,underArticle226 of the Constitutionof}

¶27

India, is^{hled seekingthe following relief}

¶28

"....to^{issue an aPpropiate Wit, Orderor Direction more parlicularlg one} in the noture^{of Wit of Mandamusdeclaingthe inactionqf the official} respondents^{in mutotingthe petitioner Name in ReuenueRecordsand} issue pattadar^{possbook to the petitionerift respectof Landsin SUNo63} to an extent^{Ac.S 14 gts respectiuetAsituated at Duuasipattuuiltage'} So.snoot^{Gramponchgath,ltikgalaMandat' JogulambaGctduLalaDistict} TS o.s^{iltegat,arbitraryand Violation of Articte 14 of Constitutionof India} and consequentlg^{directthe officialrespondents to mutate tlle name of} the petitioner^{in Reuenue Recordsin respectof lands in Sg No'63 to an} erte oI^{Ac'5.14 gts respectiuelg situatedat Duuasipaltgvillage' Sasnool} Grampanchgath"^{Itik4ala Mandc'L'Jogulamba Gadu'ola Distict'T S ''}

¶29

Considered^{the submissions ol the learned counsel for the} respective^{parties and perused the record'}

¶30

The^{petitioner claims to be the owner and possessorof land} admeasuring^{Acs.S-14 guntas in Sy No'63 situated at Duvasipally} village, Sasnool^{Grampanchyath'ItikyaiaMandal'Jogulamba} Gadwala^{District, having purchased the sameunder registered sale} deed bearing^{documentNo 5 of 1986' dated O2'O1'1986'The case} of the^{petitioner is that he submitted severalrepresentations before} the respondents^{seeking to mutatehis name in the revenue records}

¶31

2

¶32

rn respect of the subject rands, but t r date no ar:tion has been taken by the respondents on the said representations .

¶33

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, on written instructions has submitted that the land in Sy.No.63 is originally Khidmathi inare land and the name of Sri Joshi Thimmappa S/o. Bheema Charlu is recorded as Inamdar from 1954-55 to till date. It is further subrnitted that no Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) is issued in favour of any person till date as laid down under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, 1955' It is also submitted that on verif,rcation of En iowment 1and register, it was found that the land in Sy.No.63 i; recorded as Endowment land. It is further submitted that eve-r though the petitioner has purchased the subject property in the year 19g6, he has not made any application under Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, lgZI (tbr short Act, 1971') seeking.to mutate his name in respect of the su:ject property and therefore, at this length of time, he is not entitlec for mutation of his name in the revenue records and for consequel Ltial issuance of pattadar passbooks. It is further submitted that in Executioe

¶34

OlJicer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthg, Ma.habubnagar District os. Joint Collector, Maha-bubnagar and otflersl the Full

¶35

'^zoz3 1r; erD a: (TS) (FB)

¶36

tf

¶37

3

¶38

Bench of this Court held that^purchaser of land from an^Inamdars is not a successor-in-interest and cannot apply for Occupancy Rights Certihcate and only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the Inam land, can apply to get ORC. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Fult Bench of this Court, the contesting parties have fi1ed Speciai Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court without suspending the orders, granted status-quo with regard to^possession of^the petitioners therein and the finding given by the Full Bench of this Court apply to the instant case.

¶39

The relevant portion of the orders passed by the Full Bench^of this Court it Exec-utiae Olftcer's case (supra) reads follows:

¶40

\ \

¶41

"58. In the light of the aboue^{discussion, u)e qnsu)erthe reference as} under:

¶42

(1) Ttrc lau laid dotun in S. Veera Reddg's ca.se^(supra), is not^coffect hauing regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act.^{We agree} with^{the laut} laid down in R. Ramender Reddg's case^{(supra| as correctqnd ouern-tle the} decision in S. Veera Reddy case^(supra).

¶43

(2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor-tninterest and cannot applA for ORC.

¶44

(3) Onlg a legal heir is a successor-in interest to Inandar utho can conttnue to occltpy the inam land cqn applg^{to getORC.}

¶45

(4) Tlrc decision in Kodithqla Keshqrrulu's case^(supro), does not^lag doun tte corect lou.t and is ouemtled.^{For thatmalTer, aLl the decisions} of leanted Single Judges and the Divtsion^Benches which^{haue taken} contrqry vieu stands ouerntled.

¶46

(5) We make it clear that an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim permanent^tenant, protected tenant ond fton-protected tenqnt can acquire saledble^interest onlg afier theg obtain ORC and cannot^create third^{partA ights qnd/ or} interest in ang other^person before^{obtainingORC."}

¶47

4

¶48

The findings given by the Full Bench of this Court squarely apply to the instant case, and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of following the orders passed in Executiu,z Offcerrs case (supra), as the petitioner claims to have purchasec the land from the legal heir of the Inamdar. After disposal of Specierl Leave petition before the Honble Apex Court, if any cause survives , the petitioner herein is at liberty to agitate his right before the app ropriate forum. tn accordance u,ith law

¶49

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pendirrg, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs

¶50

SD/. A. JAYAS ASSISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER^Fz

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

To,

¶53