THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 2009, and 1 of 2015 in
Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007
And
Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2012 and 1 of 2021 in
Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008
and
Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 of 2010; 1, 2 and 3 of 2015 in
Writ Appeal (SR).No.47796 of 2010
and
Writ Appeal (SR).No.47796 of 2010
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012 in
Writ Petition No.5525 of 2007
and
Writ Petition No.5525 of 2007
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2011; 1 and 2 of 2015; 1 and 2 of
2021 in Writ Petition No.10127 of 2007
and
Writ Petition No.10127 of 2007
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2015 in Writ Appeal No.1283 of 2009
and
Writ Appeal No.1283 of 2009
Interlocutory Application Nos.3 of 2009; 1, 2 and 3 of 2011 in
Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009
and
Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009
Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2012 in
Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009
and
Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2010; and 3 of 2015 in
Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010
and
Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010
HAC,J & TA,J
::2:: wa_540_2007&batch
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 6 and 7 of 2012; 1 of 2013; 1, 2 and 3
of 2014; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of 2015; 1 and 2 of 2016; 1 of 2017;
1 & 2 of 2018; and 1 of 2019 in
Writ Petition No.408 of 2012
and
Writ Petition No.408 of 2012
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2012; 1 of 2013 and 1 of 2015
in Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012
and
Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2014 in
Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014
and
Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2014 in
Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014
and
Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2 and 5 of 2015 in
Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015
and
Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015
AND
Interlocutory Application Nos.3 of 2015; 1, 2 and 3 of 2016 in
Writ Appeal (SR) No.127899 of 2015
and
Writ Appeal (SR) No.127899 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
The subject matter of this batch of Writ Petitions is the issue
relating to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates under Sections 4
and 5 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for
short, 'the Act') in respect of land admeasuring Acs.11.06 gts., in
Sy.No.366, Acs.16.12 gts., in Sy.No.367 and Acs.11.29 gts., in
Sy.No.368 of Kanojiguda, Hamlet of Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy
District.
HAC,J & TA,J
::3:: wa_540_2007&batch
2. There is a three-pronged contest among:
(a) Khaja Ahmeduddin, S/o. Late Khaja Abdullah, Khaja
Abdul Rahman, S/o. Late Kjaha Abdullah, and Khaja Muneeruddin,
S/o.Khaja Ahmeduddin claiming through one Khaja Meeran who
contend that they are entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under
Section 4 of the Act in the capacity of 'Inamdars' (henceforth referred
to as 'succesors of Inamdars');
(b) Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhoopal Reddy, who
claim Occupancy Rights Certificate alleging that they were 'Kabiz-e-
Kadim' entitled to be issued such Certificate under Section 5 of the
Act or in the alternative as successors-in-interest of the Inamdars after
a purchase from some of the Inamdars (Khaja Mohiuddin and others)
on 15.01.1960. There was also a plea of oral tenancy also raised by
them, but it was not seriously pressed. (henceforth referred to as the
'Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim')
(c) P. Sunanda and others who claim Occupancy Rights
Certificate as successors-in-interest of the Inamdars on the basis of
purchases in a Court auction on 19.10.1987 in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in
O.S.No.76 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-
Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad. (henceforth referred to as the 'auction purchasers')
3. There was also a claim to this property by Kothakapu Sai
Reddy and 3 others contending that they are protected tenants of the
HAC,J & TA,J
::4:: wa_540_2007&batch
said land and entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 7
of the Act, but the same was rejected by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella Division on 24.01.2004.The said order was
confirmed by order dt.09.04.2007 in W.P.No.7093 of 2007, and also
in W.A.No.540 of 2007 by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. So their claim no longer survives for consideration.
A brief overview of the Act
4. The A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was
enacted to abolish all Inams other than Village Service Inams and
Inams held by Religious and Charitable Institutions, for charge of full
assessment for such abolished Inams, for retention by the Inamdar as
well as his tenants of lands under their personal cultivation to the
extent of the maximum allowed under the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and to give adequate
compensation for the lands resumed by them.
5. Only Section 1, Section 2, Section 3(1), Clauses (a), (b), (c) and
(f) of Section 3, and Sections 33 to 37 were brought into force on
20.07.1955 but the rest of the Sections were brought into force on
01.11.1973. The A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules,
1975 were published in the Gazette on 28.06.1975.
6. Immediately after abolition i.e., 20.07.1955, the right, title and
interest of Inamdars vested with the State. However, the persons, who
fit into the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 are entitled to be registered as
HAC,J & TA,J
::5:: wa_540_2007&batch
occupants and the State would grant Occupancy Rights Certificate
upon being satisfied that the concerned person is doing personal
cultivation as on 01.11.1973.
The Background
facts.
7. With this introduction we shall give a brief background of the facts which resulted in the filing of these Writ petitions before this Court.
RE: Survey Nos.367 and 368
8. In the present case, a Muntakab was issued by a Jagirdar Maharaja Kishan Prashad of the Nizam Government in Tahsil No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919) in favour of Khaja Jalal. A copy of Muntakab is at page Nos.308 to 312 of Volume I-A.
9. It has been specifically mentioned in the Muntakab that it is a Panmaqta Inam (revenue paying). Khaja Jalal was inducted into possession in respect of lands covered by Sy.Nos.40, 25/4, 80/1 to 80/5 with an assessment of 276-80 and these lands are covered by old Sy.Nos.285, 253, 288 and 290 admeasuring Ac.204.22 gts on receipt of Rs.744/-.
10. Later on, after re-survey, the Sy.No.285 was re-numbered as Sy.Nos .357 to 372. The subject lands in Sy.No.366,367 and 368 of Kanojiguda are part of the Inam granted to Khaja Jalal by the Jagirdar.
HAC,J & TA,J
::6:: wa_540_2007&batch
11. After the death of Khaja Jalal, there were succession proceedings, whereunder succession was granted in favour of Khaja Osman, Khaja Hyder, Khaja Meeran vide Orders dt.04.07.1962 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, in an Appeal against orders of the Deputy Tahsildar, Hyderabad West dt.25.08.1958 (page No.331 and 331 of Volume I-A).
12. The entries in Khasra Pahani were corrected accordingly.
13. The orders passed by Nizam Atiyat in F.No.855 dt.26.11.1964 would also establish that the schedule lands are Inam Lands belonging to Khaja Jalal.
14. Mutation was effected in the year 1968 and Faisal Patti was prepared in the year 1968-69 i.e., Thakta 5-6-7 and Tahsildar fixed the revenue payable for the Khaja Jalal Maqtha (Inam) in F.No.A1/4512/68 dt.28.09.1968.
15. The Wasoolbaqui, Sethwar, Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani would also establish that the land granted to Khaja Jalal was a Panmaqtha Inam.
16. However, separate proceedings for Occupancy Rights Certificate were initiated in respect of Sy.No.366 on 25.11.2006 by Mamidi Yadi Reddy by filing application in Form-I prescribed under the Act. Successors of Inamdars also filed such application for grant of Occupancy Rights certificate in December 2006.
HAC,J & TA,J
::7:: wa_540_2007&batch
17. One Kottakpu Sai Reddy claiming to be protected tenant filed Form-I (statutory format) seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of Sy.Nos.367 and 368 in 2002. Upon objections being called for, the successors of Inamdars on one hand and Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhupal Reddy claimed as Kabizi-Kadim, P.Sunanda and others claiming to be purchasers in a Court auction dt.19.10.1987, filed objections opposing the claim.
The successors of Inamdars filed separate Form-I claiming under Section 4 of the Act in August 2003.
Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhupal Reddy filed separate Form-I claiming under Section 5 of the Act as Kabiz-e- kadim/purchase from inamdars on 16.3.2002.
18. P.Sunanda and others filed Form-I seeking Occupancy certificate ofr lands in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda alleging that they have purchased the land in 1987 in a Court auction in a mortgage suit, enforced against one K.S.Chetty, who claimed to have purchased from some of the Inamdars under sale deed on 19.10.1967, and hence claimed as successors-in-interest of Inamdars.
19. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Sri K.Harshavardan) granted Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) in favour of the successors of Inamdars while rejecting the claims of others vide order dt. 24.01.2004 in proceedings No.L/760/2001 (page Nos.18- 42 of Volume I-B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::8:: wa_540_2007&batch
20. Appeals were preferred both by Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhupal Reddy and P.Sunanda under Section 24 before the Joint Collector.
21. The Appellate Authority, Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy, Sri V.Seshadri, dismissed the Appeals filed against the orders dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella vide orders dt.24.02.2007. However, the Joint Collector also set aside the ORC granted in favour of Inamdars holding that the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 are Kancha Lands (grazing lands) and that nobody would be entitled to Occupancy Rights certificate.
22. Aggrieved by the same, all the above mentioned persons including Inamdars filed Writ Petitions.
23. Inamdars filed W.P.No.4779 of 2007, which was dismissed at the stage of admission by the learned Single Judge Justice V.V.S.Rao vide orders dt.08.03.2007 (page Nos.77 to 82 of Volume I-B).
24. Inamdars filed Review Petition No.134796 of 2007, which was dismissed by Justice V.V.S.Rao vide orders dt.07.02.2008 since the delay in filing was not condoned. Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008 is filed against it (page No.120 to 126 of Volume I-C).
25. The Writ Petition No.7093 of 2007 filed by Kottakapu Sai Reddy was dismissed at the admission stage by learned Single Judge Justice V.V.S. Rao vide orders dt.09.04.2007 (Page Nos.87 to 91 of Volume I-B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::9:: wa_540_2007&batch
26. The Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007 filed by Kottakapu Sai Reddy was also dismissed at the admission stage by Sri Justice G.S.Singhvi and Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy vide orders dt.02.07.2007 (page Nos.92 to 108 of Volume I-B).
27. The SLP (C) No.11203 of 2007 filed against it was dismissed at the admission stage vide orders dt.02.05.2008 (page No.109 of Volume I-B).
28. P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers) filed W.P.No.10127 of 2007 challenging order dt.24.02.2007 passed in File No.F1/5862/2005 of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District dismissing their appeal under Section 24 of the Act and holding that they are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate.
29. Similarly, S.Bhupal Reddy filed W.P.No.5525 of 2007 challenging the order dt.24.02.2007 in Case No.F1/7177/2004 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District setting aside the order dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.
30. However, W.P.No.16689 of 2008 filed by Mamidi Yadi Reddy against the same orders was allowed by Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy holding that the nature of land was not an issue before the Joint Collector, and he remanded the matter to the Joint Collector to confine the scope of enquiry in respect of entitlement for grant of Occupancy right Certificate as between the Writ petitioners and HAC,J & TA,J ::10:: wa_540_2007&batch respondent Nos.3 to 6 i.e. inamdars vide orders dt.19.03.2009 (page Nos.110 to 113 of Volume I-B).
31. After remand, the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy, Dr.M.Jagan Mohan held that the land is Panmaqta Inam Land; that the lands are not Kancha Lands but agriculture lands; that the word 'Bonthala Kancha' mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 referring to these lands is the name of the field and not a Kancha Land as held by his predecessor Joint Collector V.Seshadri. He also referred to the earlier orders of Joint Collector (V.Seshadri) and held that that it was rightly held that P.Sunanda and others (auction purchasers) are not entitled for ORC; and like-wise, Kottakapu Sai Reddy and others are not entitled for any ORC. Having held so, the matter was further remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct de-novo enquiry with regard to cultivation and possession as on 01.11.1973 vide proceedings No.F1/2079/2009 dt.05.12.2009 (page Nos.114 to 121 of Volume I-B).
32. Upon remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Sri B.V.Ratna Kumar, in File No.L/35/2010 dt.28.05.2010 (page Nos.122 to 134 of Volume No.1-B) having examined the pre and post abolition records held that the land is Inam Land and taking into consideration the Sethwar, Wasoolbaqui, Classer Register, Chesala Pahani allowed the claim of the legal heirs of Khaja Ahmeduddin and Khaja Abdul Rahman (Successors of Inamdars) and ordered issuance HAC,J & TA,J ::11:: wa_540_2007&batch of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. The claims of the other applicants/implead petitioners were rejected.
33. However, Appeals were filed by Mamidi Yadi Reddy in File No.F1/1718//2010, Khaja Ishaq and others claiming to be successors of another branch of Inamdars in File No.F1/3471/2010, M.Malla Reddy and another in File No.F1/1717/2010, Samala Bhoopal Reddy in File No.F1/3807/2010 against the orders dt.28.05.2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri B.V.Ratna Kumar.
34. The Auction Purchasers, without exhausting the appeal remedy, straight away filed W.P.No.13096 of 2010 questioning the orders dt.28.05.2010 of RDO, Sri B.V.Ratna Kumar.
35. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Sri M.Jagannadham, dismissed all the appeals on 14.12.2011. However, the Joint Collector observed that the impugned order does not reveal whether the primary authority examined the nature of the lands and whether the lands are used as grazing lands or the entire lands were active and personal cultivation of the grantees of ORC. Therefore, it was further remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the same with reference to ground reality. It is also mentioned that the remand is to the extent of claim of Khaja Ahmeduddin and three others vide File No.F1/1718/2010 dt.14.12.2011. (page Nos.135 to 167 of Volume I- B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::12:: wa_540_2007&batch
36. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.408 of 2012 was filed by Mamidi Yadi Reddy. An interim order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 dt.15.01.2012 as follows:
"While the proceedings before the RDO shall continue consequent to the remand orders of the Joint Collector and the proceedings before the Lower Tribunal may go on but no final orders shall be passed with regard to grant of ORC". (page No.168 iof Volume I-B).
37. Though, the remand was in respect of the extent of claim of Khaja Ahmeduddin and three others, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy, held on 3.3.2014 that Mamidi Yadi Reddy is entitled for ORC, but however kept the grant of ORC in favour of Mamidi Yadi Reddy LRs in abeyance in view of the interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 dt.15.01.2012 in File No.L/601/2012 dt.03.03.2014 (page Nos.185 to 203 of Volume I-B).
38. Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed a Writ Petition W.P.No.25745 of 2012 seeking a direction to the respondents therein for restoration of their names in Sy.Nos.367 and 368.
39. Inamdars and others filed Appeals on the file of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy contending that the findings recorded by RDO are beyond the scope of the remand order vide Case Nos.F1/870, 874, 890, 898 and 1797 of 2014.
HAC,J & TA,J
::13:: wa_540_2007&batch
40. The Joint Collector, Sri Champalal, held on 17.10.2014 that the appeals before him were pre-mature in view of interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 apart from observing that the order of RDO itself is pre-mature vide orders dt.17.10.2014 (page Nos.204 to 235 of VolumeI-B).
41. Aggrieved by the same, Inamdars filed Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014, S.Bhupal Reddy filed W.P.No.3159 of 2015. (page Nos.44 to 54 of Volume I-C).
42. Aggrieved by the orders dt.14.12.2011 of Joint Collector, Sri M. Jagannadham, Sri Samala Bhoopal Reddy preferred Review. The Joint Collector, vide orders dt.21.01.2012 held that there is no need to review the matter and observed that he can approach the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case was remanded to him.
43. Aggrieved by the orders passed in Review dt.21.01.2012 by the Joint Collector, Sri M.Jagannadham, Inamdars filed W.P.No.33568 of 2014 on the ground that the Joint Collector has no power to review under the Act.
44. P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers) sought leave to file Writ Appeal against the judgment in W.P.No.16689 of 2008 dt.19.03.2009 of Justice L.Narasimha Reddy. Leave Petition No.WAMP No.691 of 2010 in W.A. SR No.47796 of 2010 were filed.
HAC,J & TA,J
::14:: wa_540_2007&batch
45. One C.V.Mahalaxmi, claiming to be purchaser of 250 sq. yds from Samala Narsimha Reddy (father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy) sought leave to file Writ Petition against the judgment in W.P.No.16689 of 2008 dt.19.03.2009 of Justice L.Narasimha Reddy. WAMP SR No.2582 of 206 in WA SR No.127899 of 2015 are the applications for grant of leave.
46. P.Sunanda and others filed Leave Petition No.WAMP No.2326 of 2009 and Review Petition No.WA SR 99886 of 2009 in W.A.No.540 of 2007.
47. Apart from this, P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers) filed C.M.A.No.1876 of 1999 against the common order dt.07.06.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.A.No.16/1987 (filed by Samala Narasimha Reddy and Sri Mamidi Yadi Reddy, the alleged purchasers under the oral agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960) and E.A.No.33/1987 (filed by 52 Godrej Employees, who purchased plots out of the layout in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in S.No.368 of Alwal village made by Samala Narasimha Reddy alleged purchaser under oral agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960).
48. C.M.A.No.2230 of 1999 against E.A.No.33 of 1987, which was partly allowed by the executing Court declaring Title in respect of Sy.No.366, 367 and 368.
HAC,J & TA,J
::15:: wa_540_2007&batch
49. CRP No.300 of 2000 was filed against the common order dt.07.06.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing E.A.No.11/1987 (filed by the auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the land purchased by them in the Court auction conducted in E.P.No.2/1985 and pursuant to the sale certificate dt.09.10.1987).
50. Judgment Debtor (K.S.Chetty) filed C.M.A.No.233 of 2000 against E.A.No.16 of 1987 and also filed C.M.A.No.234 of 2000 against E.A.No.33 of 1987.
51. However in this common order we do not propose to deal with the CMA.No.s 1876 of 1999, 2230 of 1999,300 of 1999, 233 of 2000 and 234 of 2000 and direct that they be disposed off separately after considering the facts and circumstances in those cases and also the common orders passed herein.
52. One Mr.Ch.Kondaiah Chowdhary claiming to be GPA-holder of Auction purchasers filed W.P.No.19551 of 2009 seeking Police Protection in respect of Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368. The Government Pleader for Home made a submission that Police are ready to give protection. Basing on the said submission, Writ Petition was disposed off at the admission stage, without notice to the unofficial respondents viz., Mamidi Yadi Reddy, the rival claimant.
53. Aggrieved thereby, Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed Writ Appeal No.1283 of 2009 and obtained interim suspension.
HAC,J & TA,J
::16:: wa_540_2007&batch
RE: SY.No.366
54. Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed Application Form-I on 25.02.2006 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella for land in this Sy.No. claiming as purchaser under Court decree, which was assigned File No.L/3590/2006.
55. K.Krishna Reddy's claiming to be Protected Tenant filed objections thereto.
56. Successors of Inamdars also filed Objections and a an application in Form-I for grant of Occupancy right certificate.
57. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri M.Ravinder Reddy passed orders dt.25.02.2008 in Proceedings No.L/3590/2006 upholding the claim of Mamidi Yadi Reddy and rejected the claims of K.Krishna Reddy and Successors of Inamdars.
58. Aggrieved by the orders dt.25.02.2008 in proceedings No.L/3590/2006 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, M.Ravinder Reddy, Successors of Inamdars filed Appeal and the same was against Case No.F1/2372/2008.
59. The Appeal filed by the Successors of Inamdars was dismissed by the Joint Collector, M.Jagan Mohan vide orders dt.08.08.2008.
60. However, Auction Purchasers without filing Appeal before the Joint Collector, straight away filed W.P.No.8764 of 2008, which was HAC,J & TA,J ::17:: wa_540_2007&batch dismissed granting liberty to avail remedy of Appeal before the Joint Collector vide orders dt.16.12.2009.
61. Aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Collector, the successors of Inamdars filed W.P.No.16349 of 2009.
62. M.Venkata Ratnam and others (Auction Purchasers) filed W.P.No.10874 of 2009 and is pending.
Events after the hearing commenced in this Court
63. Heard Sri Y.Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the successors of the Inamdars and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Counsel, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy for Sriharsha Reddy, Advocate, Sr.Counsel, Sri P.Ravikiran Rao, Sr.Counsel for Sri Vivek Jain,Advocate for the Reddy brothers, Smt. A.Anasuya and Sri Sridhar Pothuraju and Sri J.Prabhakar for the auction purchasers on 14.06.2021, 21.06.2021, 01.07.2021, 06.07.2021, 07.07.2021, 08.07.2021, 13.07.2021, 14.07.2021, 15.07.2021, 28.07.2021, 29.07.2021, 30.07.2021, 04.08.2021, 05.08.2021, 16.08.2021, 17.08.2021, 25.08.2021, 26.08.2021, 07.09.2021, 08.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 17.09.2021 and 20.09.2021.
64. On 20.09.2021 these matters were reserved for judgment. Whether the land is Inam land or patta land or Jagir land?
65. While the persons claiming as Inamdars contend that the lands in all the three Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda are 'Inam HAC,J & TA,J ::18:: wa_540_2007&batch lands', the auction purchasers contend that the land is not 'Inam land' and is Patta land or Jagir land and so the provisions of the Act do not apply to it.
66. This is an important jurisdictional fact because if the subject land is not 'inam land', then the Revenue Divisional Officer to whom applications were made under the Act for grant of Occupancy Certificate under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act r/w Section 10 of the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the said applications.
67. So in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such jurisdictional facts have to be determined in order decide whether the said Authority correctly exercised jurisdiction in the matter or not.
68. The auction purchasers, having approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate as successors-in-interest to the Inamdars Khaja Moinuddin and others (through a sale made obtained by them allegedly on 19.10.1961 to K.S. Chetty and later through a Sale Certificate obtained by them on 19.10.1987 in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in O.S.No.76 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad), thereby admitted that these lands are 'Inam lands', and in our opinion, they are estopped from raising this contention.
HAC,J & TA,J
::19:: wa_540_2007&batch
69. According to the auction purchasers, the land is Jagir land and the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act is attracted and since the State Government did not recognize these lands as Inam lands after the abolition of Jagirs, the Act will not apply to the subject lands. This plea is based on the proviso to Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act.
70. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act defines the term "Inam" and states:
"2(1)(c). 'inam' means land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the village records and includes -
(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam, and
(ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records :
Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas the expression inam shall not include such lands as have not been recognized as inams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs." ( emphasis supplied)
71. We may point out that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the auction purchasers on 27.07.2002 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella by one of the auction purchasers (acting under a GPA for all the auction purchasers), along with their application seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate as 'successors of inamdars', no plea is raised that the subject land is Jagir land.
72. The deponent, on the contrary, stated that K.S. Chetty, from whom they obtained title had no knowledge about the Inam Abolition HAC,J & TA,J ::20:: wa_540_2007&batch Act and could not approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate.
73. So without raising such a plea that the subject land is Jagir land before the Primary Authority, and having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and having sought an Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act, it is not open to the auction purchasers to raise the plea that it is Jagir Land subsequently.
74. Also, admittedly the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division had passed orders in Proceedings No.L/760/2001 dt.24.01.2004 rejecting the claim of the auction purchasers for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate on the ground that they were not in possession on the relevant date of 01.11.1973 and they had claimed to have come into possession of the land only in 1987. He held that the Inamdar group claiming through Khaja Meeran is entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act.
75. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not challenged under Section 24 of the Act by the auction purchasers before the Joint Collector. They directly filed W.P.No.2508 of 2004 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and for the first time in that Writ Petition raised the plea that the subject land is Jagir land.
76. This Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.10.2004 by a learned Single Judge of this Court observing that they had on their own submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer under HAC,J & TA,J ::21:: wa_540_2007&batch Section 10 of the Act by filing objections, that they participated in the enquiry, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had dismissed their objections to the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to others and to grant it to them, by passing an elaborate order, and therefore it is reasonable to infer that, as an after-thought, they are raising the question of jurisdiction. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed them to raise such questions of jurisdiction before the Appellate Authority under the Act i.e., the Joint Collector by filing Appeal before him.
77. The auction purchasers then challenged this order of learned Single Judge by filing W.A.No.1588 of 2004 before a Division Bench of the said Court, but the said Appeal was also dismissed granting them leave to prefer Appeal before the Appellate Authority provided they filed it on or before 14.11.2005.
78. Thereafter, Appeal was filed by the auction purchasers before the Joint Collector against the order dt.24.01.2004 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.
79. This Appeal along with the Appeals filed against it by the protected tenants was dismissed on 24.02.2007 by the Joint Collector without deciding the nature of land i.e., whether it is Jagir land or Inam land. Strangely he also set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate granted in favour of Inamdars holding that the lands in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 are Kancha lands (grazing lands) and that nobody would be entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate in view of Clause HAC,J & TA,J ::22:: wa_540_2007&batch
(a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act which prohibits grant of such Certificates for grazing lands. He referred to the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 which used the words 'Bontala Kancha' under the heading 'Field Name' and also Chesala Pahani which mentioned them to be 'Kancha Lands' and said that the columns in these documents indicated that the land is not under cultivation, and so it can be safely concluded that they are used for grazing purposes, and were not under cultivation in 1955 when the Act was passed.
80. It is not in dispute that challenging the order dt.24.02.2007 of the Joint Collector:
(a) the Inamdars filed W.P.No.4779 of 2007 which was dismissed at the admission stage by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 08.03.2007. The Inamdars then filed Review Petition No.134796 of 2007 which was dismissed on 07.02.2008 on the ground of delay in filing it, which was not condoned. However, W.A.No.1082 of 2008 filed against it is pending and is being considered in this batch.
(b) W.P.No.7093 of 2007 filed by the protected tenants was also dismissed at the admission stage by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 09.04.2007, and W.A.No.540 of 2007 filed by the protected tenants before a Division Bench of the said High Court was dismissed on 02.07.2007.
HAC,J & TA,J
::23:: wa_540_2007&batch
(c) The auction purchasers filed W.P.No.10127 of 2007 which is also being considered in this batch.
(d) S. Bhoopal Reddy of the Reddy Brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group filed W.P.No.5525 of 2007 which is pending and is also being considered in this batch.
(e) The other member of the Reddy Brothers group i.e., M. Yadi Reddy filed W.P.No.16689 of 2008.
81. We may point out that on 19.03.2009, W.P.No.16689 of 2008 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that the nature and character of land was never in issue before the Joint Collector in the Appeal under Section 24 of the Act decided by him on 24.02.2007 against the orders dt.24.01.2004 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
It was held that the only area of dispute before the Joint Collector was whether the said M. Yadi Reddy was entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate.
The Court held that it appeared that the Joint Collector wanted to get a reward or a pat from the State Government for procuring such valuable land and that he had passed the order on 24.02.2007 by crossing all limits of prudence.
The Court took serious exception to his conduct. It set aside the order dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector on 19.03.2009 and remanded the matter back to the Joint Collector for fresh HAC,J & TA,J ::24:: wa_540_2007&batch consideration and disposal and confined adjudication only to the rival claims between the Writ Petitioner and other Appellants on the one hand and the Inamdars group on the other hand.
82. Having regard to this order dt.19.03.2009 of the High Court in W.P.No.16689 of 2008, which has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the State, the question whether the land is 'grazing land' or not, now becomes irrelevant and the State Government cannot contend that Occupancy Rights Certificate cannot be given for this land in view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
83. After remand. the Joint Collector again passed an order on 05.12.2009 in the Appeal No.F1/2079/2009 preferred by the Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim to which only the Inamdars group was party.
He firstly held that M. Yadi Reddy who was the Appellant in the Appeal Case No.F1/7177/2004 had filed a Petition through his counsel under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC along with an affidavit stating that as per legal advice, the appellant had settled the matter out of Court with the Inamdars group in whose favour the Occupancy Rights Certificate was directed to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that he had agreed to withdraw the Appeal. It therefore dismissed the Appeal No.F1/207/2009 as not pressed as regards the interest of M. Yadi Reddy.
HAC,J & TA,J
::25:: wa_540_2007&batch
The Joint Collector went into the question of classification of land in relation to Sy.Nos.367 and 368 i.e., whether it is Inam land or not and considered important pre- and post abolition revenue records such as, the Wasool baqui of 1354 Fasli, Sethwar of Alwal Village and Classer Register of 1355 Fasli and held that the words 'Bapath Panmaqtha' were used for the said lands indicating that they were only Inam lands; that the name of the Field for these Sy.Nos. is recorded as 'Bonthala Kancha'; that the lands are not Kancha lands but are agricultural lands, that the conclusion of his predecessor that the land is Kancha is not correct because the records say that the lands are 'Panmaqtha' lands.
But strangely he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to conduct a detailed enquiry for ascertaining the nature of the land with regard to cultivation and also with regard to the question as to who is in possession thereof on 01.11.1973, the date of vesting.
84. The Revenue Divisional Officer then passed a fresh order on 28.05.2010 after considering all the records referred to above including the Chesala Pahani.
He then referred to the report of the Bandobasth Department of the Estate of Raja Saraswathi Pershad (the Jagirdar) dt.1st Behman 1315 Fasli issued in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919) and the statement therein that the said Raja had granted Muntakab No.1251 in F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 in the name of Khaja Jalal, that he was HAC,J & TA,J ::26:: wa_540_2007&batch inducted into possession of the lands in 1919 and so held that they are Inam lands.
He also referred to orders passed by the Nazim Atiyat Court in F.No.855 dt.26.11.1964 that the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 are Inam lands and they belong to Khaja Jalal; and that it is evident that these Inam lands are saved under Section 18(1) of the Jagir Abolition Regulation 1358.
He therefore held that the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the Inamdars group is proper.
85. We have perused the Sethwar of Alwal Village prepared in 1950 in respect of the above Sy.Nos. and observed that it mentions under Col.3 that the land is 'Panmaqtha' and mentions in Col.4 that the pattedar was Khaja Jalal Sab.
Even the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 shows in Col.7 the land as 'maqtha' for Sy.Nos.366, 367 and also 368.
The Chesala Pahani of 1955-58 again uses the word 'maqtha' for Sy.No.368.
86. The term 'maqtha' is interpreted in the Glossary of the Book 'Revenue Laws of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)' by Sri Rajiah, a renowned expert in Revenue Laws of Telangana as 'land granted to a person on payment of a fixed amount which is not based on any percentage of the revenue due on the land'. In other words it is a grant / Inam.
HAC,J & TA,J
::27:: wa_540_2007&batch
87. If the contention of the auction purchasers is correct, then the above referred Revenue Records would have shown the above land as patta land and not as 'maqtha' land.
88. The counsel for the auction purchasers sought to contend that there was a grant by a Jagirdar to Khaja Jalal and it is necessary for such a grant to be recognized as an Inam by the Government after the abolition of the Jagirs as per Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act which defines the term 'Inam' and otherwise the property cannot be treated as 'Inam'.
We may point out that the Preamble to the Act, originally when it was enacted in 1955, stated 'whereas it is expedient in Public Interest to provide for the abolition of Inams with certain exceptions in the Telangana Area of the State of A.P.' and for other matters connected therewith.
But the words 'with certain exceptions' were deleted through an Amendment by A.P. Act No.29 of 1985.
Once these words are deleted, in our opinion, it is not possible for there to be any Inam (even in respect of former Jagir areas as mentioned in the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act) to survive the abolition of Inams after 20.07.1955; and the question of any Inam still surviving as such, because there is no recognition by the Government after the abolition of Jagirs, does not arise.
HAC,J & TA,J
::28:: wa_540_2007&batch
That was why the Sethwar of 1950 mentioned the land as Panmaqtha and the Khasra Pahani for 1954-55 also mentioned the land as Maqtha land.
So the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, on which reliance is placed by the auction purchasers, cannot come to their aid.
Consequently, the plea of their counsel based on Rules regarding Grant of Pattadari Rights in Non-khalsa Villages framed on 19.05.1947 or the subsequent Circular No.2 dt.18.10.1949 also will not have any relevance.
Had the plea of the auction purchasers been correct, neither the Sethwar of 1950 nor the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 would have shown the land as 'maqtha land' and on the contrary, they would have shown the land as 'patta land', which is admittedly not the case.
89. Reliance is sought to be placed on an order dt.03.04.1972 passed by the Board of Revenue by Smt. Anasuya, learned counsel for the auction-purchasers to contend that the land had ceased to be pan maktha land which they used to be till 1956, but from that year onwards they are khalsa lands (Government lands).
But we are of the opinion that it is not for the Board of Revenue to express any opinion about the nature of the land because it has no jurisdiction under the Act.
Secondly, it had referred to the Report of the Collector, Hyderabad and a judgment of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad on 12.07.1968 HAC,J & TA,J ::29:: wa_540_2007&batch while making the above observation, but the Tahsildar's order / finding is contrary to the Sethwar and Khasra Pahani which both say it is pan maktha land.
But to the extent the said order of Board of Revenue states that the said lands are pan maktha lands till 1956, it supports the case of the Inamdars and the Kabiz-e-kadim groups that the land is 'Inam Land' as on 20.7.1955, when the Act came into operation.
90. Therefore, we reject the plea of the auction purchasers that the subject land is Jagir land or Patta land and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable.
Which of the three groups mentioned above is entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate ?
91. Section 4 of the Act states as under :
"4. Registration of inamdars as occupants :
(1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of allinam lands other than--
(a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands; waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers;
(b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act;
(c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar; which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the 'family holding'.
[Provided that where inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands HAC,J & TA,J ::30:: wa_540_2007&batch other than those specified in clauses (a) and (c) above without restriction of extent to four and half times the family holding and without the condition of personal cultivation:
Provided further that where any person other than the concerned charitable or religious institution has been registered as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1985 such registration shall and shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration.] (2) No inamdar shall be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount equal to twenty-five times the difference between the judi or quit-rent, if any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable.
(3) The inamdar shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the time limit specified in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not."
92. Sections 5 to 8 of the Act deal with claims for the Occupancy rights Certificate by Kabiz-e-Khadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant. Unless this category is entitled to such certificate, the Inamdar will get it.
93. Therefore, every inamdar shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 5 to 8 of the Act provided, immediately before the date of vesting, such land is in his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately HAC,J & TA,J ::31:: wa_540_2007&batch owns and cultivates personally are equal to 4 ½ times the 'family holding'.
What is the relevant date of vesting to determine the entitlement for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate?
94. We shall now consider "what is the relevant date of vesting to determine the entitlement of one or the other of the three groups for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of these lands?", and which one of the competing parties was personally cultivating the land on such date.
95. To ascertain the former aspect we shall now refer to Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Act which states as under :
"(3)(a) This Section, Section 2, Section 3 except clauses (d), (g), (h) and
(i) of sub-section (2), Section 33 to 34 (both inclusive), Section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purposes of the aforesaid Sections, Section 36 and Section 37, shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette;
(b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf."
96. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others1 considered the provisions of the Act including the above provision, Section 3 (which abolishes inams vesting them in the State) along with Sections 4 to 8 and held that 1 1993 (2) A.W.R. Pg.84 HAC,J & TA,J ::32:: wa_540_2007&batch under Section 3, the Inams are abolished and vest in the State Government w.e.f. 20.07.1955.
It then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laxman Ambaji2 and held that though the inams are abolished, the rights of the inamdar or tenant or Kabiz-e-Kadim are not extinguished and if they are able to establish personal cultivation as on 01.11.1973, they would be entitled to occupancy rights under the Act.
It held that as per the provisions of the Act itself there are two different dates of vesting and the right to get occupancy rights is not correlated to the right of vesting of inams in the State. It declared that the relevant date for purpose of recognizing the occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act is 01.11.1973.
It held that if on that date either the inamdar or the other categories mentioned in Sections 4 to 8 are in possession of the land, they would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. This legal position is not disputed by counsel for any of the parties. (A) Whether the Reddy Brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim Group is entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of the land in Sy.No.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda Village?
97. Firstly, we shall deal with the claim of the Reddy Brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group for grant of occupancy rights for the subject lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
2
AIR 1971 SC 1859
HAC,J & TA,J
::33:: wa_540_2007&batch
98. We had earlier mentioned that in the Form-I application filed by M. Yadireddy on 25.11.2006 for extent of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 they had claimed occupancy rights as a purchaser under a Court decree for lands in Sy.No.366, and also as a Kabiz-e-Kadim paying land revenue to the Government; and in the Form-I application filed by M. Yadireddy and S. Bhoopal Reddy on 16.03.2002 for Acs.28.01 gts. in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 they contended that they are entitled to the Occupancy Rights Certificate as a purchaser under a sale deed dt.15.01.1960 from Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others and also that a protected tenant by name K. Sai Reddy had executed a Ekararnama in their favour on 01.01.1957 and that they were in possession of the property as on 01.11.1973 as per Revenue Records.
99. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term 'Kabiz-e-Kadim' in the following terms:
" (e) kabiz-e-kadim' means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue.'
100. Thus to qualify for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 5 of the Act, the Reddy brothers must fulfill three conditions i.e., (i) they must be in possession of the land at the time of grant of inam, or (ii) they have been in continuous possession for not less than 12 years before the date of vesting, and (iii) they should have paid the inamdar only the land revenue.
HAC,J & TA,J
::34:: wa_540_2007&batch
101. According to the records referred to by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dt.28.05.2010, the grant of inam of land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda happened when such grant was made by the Estate of Raja Kishan Prasad in favour of Khaja Jalal through a Muntakab in F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 (1919).
102. It is not the case of the Reddy brothers that they were in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 on the date of the grant of the inam. So, the first condition is not fulfilled by them.
103. Since according to Section 1(3)(a) of the Act, Section 2 of the Act came into force on the date of publication of the Act in the Gazette i.e. 20.07.1955, the Reddy brothers should have been in possession for 12 years before the date of vesting i.e. 12 years before 20.07.1955. In other words, they should prove their possession from 1943.
104. Though Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Reddy brothers sought to contend that the date of vesting is 01.11.1973, we do not agree with the said submission in view of the clear language in Section 1(3)(a) of the Act.
105. In the Form-I application for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate made by them on 16.03.2002 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368, at Column 2(b), they pleaded that they were in possession since more than 50 years. This takes their alleged possession to only 1952.
HAC,J & TA,J
::35:: wa_540_2007&batch
In the objection petition filed by them to the application in Form-I made by the alleged protected tenant K.Sai Reddy, they stated that they were in possession of this land since 1950 onwards.
Either way, they do not fulfill the condition of being in possession from 1943.
Lastly, they pleaded in Column 2(b) of Form-I application filed on 16.03.2002 for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate that they were paying land revenue to the Government.
But as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the person claiming the status of a Kabiz-e-kadim should have paid land revenue to the inamdar only and not to the Government.
Therefore even this third condition is not fulfilled by them.
106. As regards the alternate case set up by the Reddy brothers group about purchase of the land on 15.01.1960 from Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others is concerned, it is to be seen that Samala Narasimha Reddy, who is the father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy, father of Mamidi Yadi Reddy had filed O.S.No.65 of 1962 before the Munsif Magistrate, Taluk West, Hyderabad District against Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others to pass a decree for cancellation of the existing proprietor's names from the Register of Record of Rights pertaining to the suit lands and to order entry of their names as proprietors in its place.
HAC,J & TA,J
::36:: wa_540_2007&batch
107. In that suit, they merely mentioned that Khaja Mohiuddin, Khaja Mulla, Khaja Hyder and Khaja Bawa are pattedars of land in Sy.Nos.366 to 368, that defendant Nos.1 to 22 are absolute owners and persons in possession and they have agreed to sell away the lands and have put the plaintiffs in possession over the lands as owners on 15.01.1960; that they are in possession for the past 16 years for grazing of their animals under leases till 14.01.1960; and ever since 15.01.1960, they are in possession over the suit lands as absolute owners and exclusive proprietors.
So in this suit, the pleading is only of an agreement of sale (and not one of a sale deed dt.15.01.1960) for the lands in favour of Reddy brothers' fathers. Even the said agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960 was not filed by them.
108. Curiously, the said suit was filed on 10.09.1962, a written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1 to 22 on 14.09.1962 admitting their claim and stating that only Khaja Mohiuddin is surviving as pattedar and the other defendants are heirs of Khaja Abdullah, Khaja Hyder and Khaja Bawa, who had died, and on that very day, i.e. 14.09.1962, the suit came to be decreed on the basis of admission of the defendants that contents of the plaint are correct and that they could not achieve getting revenue sanction for transfer of these lands in favour of the plaintiffs due to their internal rivalries.
109. The decree dt.14.9.1962 in O.S.No.65 of 1962 before the Munsif Magistrate, Taluk West, Hyderabad District appears to be a HAC,J & TA,J ::37:: wa_540_2007&batch collusive decree in the above circumstances for in the short period of 4 days it is not possible for even suit summons to be served normally.
110. In Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh3, The Supreme Court held that if a decree is obtained by fraud or collusion it does not operate as res judicata and it is not even necessary to challenge it by way of an independent suit. In a subsequent proceeding or suit this plea can be raised to get over such a judgment obtained by collision. It held:
"6. It appears from the commentary in Sarkar's Evidence Act (13th Edn., Reprint, at p. 509) on Section 44 that it is the view of the Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna and Bombay High Courts that before such a contention is raised in the latter suit or proceeding, it is not necessary to file an independent suit. The passage from Sarkar's Evidence which refers to various decisions reads as follows:
"Under Section 44 a party can, in a collateral proceeding in which fraud may be set up as a defence, show that a decree or order obtained by the opposite party against him was passed by a court without jurisdiction or was obtained by fraud or collusion and it is not necessary to bring an independent suit for setting it aside (Bansi Lal v. Dhapo2, Rajib Panda v. Lekhan Sendh Mahapatra3, Parbati v. Gajraj Singh4, Prayag Kumari Debi v. Siva Prosad Singh5, Hare Krishna Sen v. Umesh Chandra Dutt6, Aswini Kumar Samaddar v. Banamali Chakrabarty7, Manchharam v. Kalidas8, Rangnath Sakharam v. Govind Narasinv9, Jamiraddin v. Khadejanessa Bibi10, Bhagwandas Narandas v. D.D. Patel & Co.11, Bishunath Tewari v. Mirchi12 and Gurajada Vijaya Lakshmamma v. Yarlagadda Padmanabham13)."
Thus, in order to contend in a later suit or proceeding that an earlier judgment was obtained by collusion, it is not necessary to file an 3 (2000) 7 SCC 543 HAC,J & TA,J ::38:: wa_540_2007&batch independent suit as stated in Jagar Ram case1 for a declaration as to its collusive nature or for setting it aside, as a condition precedent. In our opinion, the above cases cited in Sarkar's Commentary are correctly decided. We do not agree with the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagar Ram case1. The Full Bench has not referred to Section 44 of the Evidence Act or to any other precedents of other courts or to any basic legal principle.
7. The law in England also appears to be the same, that no independent suit is necessary. In Spencer-Bower and Turner on Res Judicata (2nd Edn., 1969) it is stated (para 359) that there are exceptions to the principle of res judicata. ..."
111. So no rights can be claimed by them under such a collusive judgment.
112. That apart, the said decree is neither a decree of declaration of title of the Reddy brothers to the said land nor one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Since the pleading in the suit was only of an agreement to sale, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it does not of itself create any interest in the said property as held in Suraj Lamps and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana4 :
"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited 4 (2012) 1 S.C.C. 656 HAC,J & TA,J ::39:: wa_540_2007&batch right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."
113. We may also point out that under Section 47 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural land would be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Collector.
114. In N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and others5, the Supreme Court held in para no.47 that in view of the express prohibition for transfer or alienation of agricultural land contained in Section 47 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, there cannot be any transfer of saleable interest in the land at all if sanction of the Collector was not obtained prior to such transfer or alienation; and the transaction without such sanction of Collector is not a mere voidable transaction. It held that the scheme of the said Act is reflected in Section 30 thereof which prohibits sub-division or sub- letting of any land by a tenant or assignment of any interest held by him therein; that even the preamble to the Act provides that it was expedient inter alia to amend the law regulating the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands and alienation of such lands 5 (2006) 4 S.C.C. 214 HAC,J & TA,J ::40:: wa_540_2007&batch and to enable the land holders to prevent excessive sub-division of agricultural holdings.
115. Therefore, in the absence of prior sanction from the Collector under Section 47 of the said Act for the transfer of the land in Sy.Nos.366 to 368 of Kanojiguda, Hamlet of Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy District, the alleged transfer thereof to Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy has no effect, and the title continues to be with the family of the inamdars consisting of Kaja Mohiuddin and others.
116. Also, under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli, there is a bar in filing of civil suits against the Government or any Officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register maintained under the said Regulation or to have any such entry omitted or amended.
The prayer in O.S.No.65 of 1962 is essentially for amendment of the register of Record of Right in relation to the above lands and attracts the provisions of the said Regulation.
But to get over the bar under Section 14 of said the Regulation, without impleading any Officer of the Government or the State Government, the said suit appears to have been filed. This conduct of the Reddy brothers' fathers cannot be appreciated and they cannot be permitted to circumvent the provisions of the regulation in this way HAC,J & TA,J ::41:: wa_540_2007&batch and get the Record of rights amended without impleading any official of the Revenue Department of the State Government.
117. Worse still, on 06.10.1962, the Office of the Munsif Court, Hyderabad West in an E.P.No.34 of 1962 filed by Samala Narasimha Reddy, strangely wrote a letter to the Collector, Hyderabad District enclosing a certified copy of the decree dt.14.09.1962 in O.S.No.65 of 1962 requesting the latter to take necessary action in the matter.
118. Nothing was done on this letter till the year 1980 but in that year, in F.No.B1/3857/80, a Faisal Patti was prepared for 1979-80 recording the name of Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy in the Record of Rights on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962 with retrospective effect.
In fact the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in his order proceedings No.L/35/2010 dt.28.05.2010 recorded a finding that the record reveals that entries in pahanis were made pursuant to orders passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.65 of 1962 and implemented in 1980 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri by correcting the Revenue Records with retrospective effect; and that such entries were made by the said official without looking into the facts and verifying the physical possession of the lands on ground.
This categorically shows that dubious methods were employed by Reddy brothers to secure the said decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962, and HAC,J & TA,J ::42:: wa_540_2007&batch then to get their names incorporated in the Record of Rights and other revenue records.
Therefore, though pahanis for 1973-74 filed by them show their names as persons in possession for Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, such entries are obviously the effect of the order passed in 1980 on the basis of the decree dubiously obtained in O.S.No.65 of 1962 and no credence can be given to such an entry obtained by such means.
The Pahanis must be presumed to retain the original entries showing the Inamdar's successors showing their possession prior to 1980 including as on 1.11.1973.
119. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate either in that capacity or as successors-in-interest of the inamdars under the agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960.
120. Admittedly, in regard to Sy.Nos.367 and 368, the claim of Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate was rejected initially by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in proceedings No.L/760/2001 dt.24.01.2004 and also by the Joint Collector on 24.02.2007; again when the order dt.24.02.2007 of the Joint Collector was set aside by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 19.03.2009 in W.P.No.16689 of 2008, and the matter was remitted back to the Joint Collector, he once again remanded it to the Revenue Divisional HAC,J & TA,J ::43:: wa_540_2007&batch Officer, Chevella; and the said Revenue Divisional Officer on 28.05.2010 once more rejected their claim.
121. Having regard to the finding recorded by us above that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Act, we uphold the above orders.
122. But we may point out that in regard to the land in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda, Mamidi Yadireddy filed application in Form-I on 25.02.2006 for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella claiming to be purchaser under an unregistered sale in 1952 and also under a Court decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962 on file of the District Munsif, West and South, Ranga Reddy District.
123. He also filed a petition on 14.11.2007 before the said authority contending that the land of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 had structures in it and they vested in him under Section 9 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
124. One K. Krishna Reddy claiming to be protected tenant filed objections thereto. The successors of the inamdars also filed objections.
125. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 25.02.2008 in Proceedings No.L/3590/2006 upholding the claim of Mamidi Yadireddy and rejecting the claims of K. Krishna Reddy and Inamdars.
HAC,J & TA,J
::44:: wa_540_2007&batch
126. This was challenged by the successors of Inamdars before the Joint Collector in Case No.F1/2372/2008, but he dismissed the appeal on 08.08.2008. The successors of inamdars filed W.P.No.16349 of 2009, and the auction purchasers filed W.P.No.10874 of 2009.
127. In the order dt.25.02.2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer he held that the successors of the inamdars were not in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 as per the Pahani of 1973-74, and so they were not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate. He rejected the claim of protected tenants also, but held that Mamidi Yadireddy's father Mamidi Rajireddy and Samala Narasimha Reddy having purchased under unregistered sale of 1952, and as per the decree dt.14.09.1962 in O.S.No.65 of 1962, and since the name of Sri Mamidi Rajireddy was found in the Pahani for 1973-74, he is entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act. He did not consider the plea of Mamidi Yadireddy under Section 9 of the Act.
128. The Joint Collector, in his order dt.08.08.2008 held that there were no structures in existence as per the Pahani of 1973-74 and so the claim under Section 9 of the Act made by Mamidi Yadireddy cannot be accepted, but in view of the purchase under the unregistered sale in 1952 and also the decree on 14.09.1962, he is entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate and not the inamdars.
129. The reasoning of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector in accepting the claim of Mamidi Yadireddy on the basis of HAC,J & TA,J ::45:: wa_540_2007&batch the decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962 cannot be accepted and has already been rejected by us as mentioned above.
130. Having pleaded that there was an Agreement of Sale on 15.01.1960 in O.S.No.65 of 1962, strangely a new plea about purchase of the land under unregistered sale of 1952 was raised before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector by Mamidi Yadireddy for the first time.
131. Therefore, in our opinion, even with regard to the land in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda, the Reddy brothers are not entitled to claim Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act, and the orders obtained by them from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in Proceedings No.L/3590/2006 on 25.02.2008 and from the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 08.08.2008, are set aside.
132. This concludes the discussion with regard to the claim of the Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group and we hold that they are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
(B) Whether the auction purchasers are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda?
133. We shall now consider whether the auction purchasers group are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
HAC,J & TA,J
::46:: wa_540_2007&batch
134. One group of auction purchasers is represented by Ms. Anasuya, Advocate, and another group is represented by Sri P. Sridhar, Advocate.
135. P. Sunanda and 13 others filed application in Form-I for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate on 20.07.2002.
136. In brief, their case is that one K.S. Chetty purchased Acs.67.12 gts. in Sy.Nos.365 to 370 of Kanojiguda under a registered sale deed dt.19.10.1967 from Khaja Moinuddin and others; that he approached the revenue authorities for mutation in his name and also made an application to the Tahsildar, Hyderabad (West) for validation of his sale by giving a certificate under Section 50-B of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
They alleged that even though actual physical possession of the land was delivered to him, it was not entered in the Revenue Records because the permission under Section 50-B of the Act was not given to him by the then Tahsildar; on 29.04.1972, the Tahsildar, Hyderabad (West) rejected his application on some technical grounds as ceiling certificate was not enclosed to his application; as Sections 47 and 48 of the said Act were repealed later on, the application was not submitted by K.S. Chetty with the relevant enclosures; but pursuant to the sale deed he enjoyed physical possession of the said property.
137. They alleged that K.S. Chetty mortgaged this property to M/s. Desai and Company, Secunderabad; and as he failed to repay the loan, HAC,J & TA,J ::47:: wa_540_2007&batch M/s. Desai and Company filed O.S.No.76 of 1971 before the Additional Chief Judge - cum - Special Chief Judge for ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; the said suit was decreed and the above property was put to sale through public auction; and the said auction was held in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in O.S.No.76 of 1971 on 18.09.1987 and the lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 were thus transferred to them after they became the highest bidders and after obtaining the sale certificate on 19.10.1987.
They alleged that possession of the property was also delivered to the auction purchasers through Court Bailiff on 20.11.1987.
According to them, K.S Chetty died on 15.03.1999 and during his lifetime he had no knowledge about the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and so could not approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate even though he was in continuous possession from 19.10.1967.
They contended that they are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate as successors-in-interest of inamdars who had sold to K.S. Chetty from whom they acquired title in the Court auction.
138. Firstly, a reading of the sale deed dt.19.10.1967 executed by the inamdars /defendant Nos.2, 12 to 14 and 17 in O.S.No.65 of 1962 in favour of K.S.Chetty shows at page 2 that 'the vendors have agreed to deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the schedule land to the HAC,J & TA,J ::48:: wa_540_2007&batch vendee'. Therefore as per the recitals in the said sale deed no possession was delivered by the vendors to K.S.Chetty at all. How he got possession subsequently and in what manner is not explained by the auction-purchasers.
139. Secondly, it is not in dispute that there was no prior sanction of the Collector for the transfer of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda on 19.10.1967 by the inamdars in favour of K.S.Chetty as mandated by Section 47(1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Therefore as per the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Srinivasa Rao (4 supra), K.S. Chetty did not get any saleable interest in the said land in the said survey numbers.
140. After Section 50-B was introduced into the said Act by Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act VI of 1964) and its further amendment by Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act XII of 1969) w.e.f. 18.03.1969 (Section 47 was omitted by the said Amending Act XII of 1969), it stated in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) thereof that where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural land took place on or after coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, but before the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 (i.e. between 21.02.1961 and HAC,J & TA,J ::49:: wa_540_2007&batch 18.03.1969) and where possession of such land was given to the alienee or transferee before such commencement and such alienation or transfer is not inconsistent with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, the alienee or transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Tahsildar for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
141. In the instant case, K.S. Chetty admittedly made such application under Section 50-B of the said Act, but it was rejected by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West on 03.03.1970. He then filed an appeal in the Court of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The District Revenue Officer of Hyderabad, after hearing the appeal passed orders in F.No.E4/20240/70 dt.29.12.1970 and remanded the case again to the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk.
142. Even after remand, the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West dismissed the said application vide Case No.A4/322/1972 on 29.04.1972 holding that his application did not come within the purview of Section 50-B for which possession and sale consideration and ceiling certificate are essential as a basic record, and they were not filed and K.S. Chetty did not attend the hearing.
143. The learned counsel for the auction-purchasers seeks to rely upon Section 26 of the A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 and urges that the said Act will override the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in so far as they relate to any matter or proceeding dealt with in the HAC,J & TA,J ::50:: wa_540_2007&batch former Act, and such provisions of the latter Act shall cease to have effect. She contends that since one of the reasons for rejection of the Section 50-B application was non-filing of certificate by K.S. Chetty that the land for which such certificate was sought was within the ceiling limits prescribed in the A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, even if such certificate is not issued to K.S. Chetty it will not in any way deprive him of title to the above land conveyed by the inamdars.
144. We do not agree with the said submission because the rejection of the application for issuance of certificate under Section 50-B of the Act by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk was not only the non- filing of the ceiling certificate but also because there were doubts about his possession and absence of proof of sale consideration.
145. Admittedly, the said order dt.29.04.1972 of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk rejecting grant of certificate under Section 50-B of the Act to him was never challenged by K.S.Chetty and the said order attained finality.
146. It is not open to the auction-purchasers claiming through him to collaterally attack the said order and seek to water-down its effect. They stepped into the shoes of K.S. Chetty and the adverse orders against him would bind them.
147. In fact, the plea on the basis of Section 26 of the A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 had not been raised in the Form-I HAC,J & TA,J ::51:: wa_540_2007&batch application made by the auction-purchasers before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and was admittedly not argued at any point of time before any Authority and is being raised for the first time in this batch of Writ Petitions. This cannot be permitted.
148. Thirdly, the crucial date for determination of grant of Occupancy Right Certificate is 01.11.1973.
It is the admitted case of the auction-purchasers that they purchased the lands in Court auction through a sale certificate dt.19.10.1987 and they are in possession since 1987.
As on 01.11.1973, admittedly they were not in possession of these lands.
On this ground also their claim cannot succeed, particularly, when there is no evidence filed to show that K.S. Chetty was in fact in actual physical possession of this land as per Revenue Record such as Pahanis as on 01.11.1973 or at any time prior thereto or subsequent thereto before 1987.
149. Fourthly, Section 3(2)(f) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 categorically states that no inam land shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order of attachment passed before such date in respect of such inams, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the HAC,J & TA,J ::52:: wa_540_2007&batch Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cease to be in force. This provision had come into force on 20.07.1955 itself.
150. In view of this, there could not have been any sale by way of public auction in 1987 in the civil suit O.S.No.76 of 1971 filed by M/s.Desai & Company against K.S. Chetty by the Additional Chief Judge - cum - Special Chief Judge for ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Consequently, the said sale in favour of the auction- purchasers is not valid.
151. A new plea was taken in W.P.No.10874 of 2009 by some of the auction-purchasers that the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 was enacted, that a Master Plan was prepared under it and the subject land falls in Residential Zone; that it was converted into non- agricultural land through a notification given under Section 13 of the said Act and so the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 would not apply.
152. No such notification has been filed in this Court or before the primary or appellate authorities under the Act by the auction- purchasers and no such plea that the land was residential zone land was canvassed before them.
153. In fact, the pahani of 1973-74 shows that the subject land is agricultural land and in Column No.16 mentions 'actual cultivator'. Had the land been converted into residential zone, there would have HAC,J & TA,J ::53:: wa_540_2007&batch been no pahani prepared for it at all. It is not open to the auction- purchasers to make such a claim at this stage.
154. It is also the plea of the auction purchasers that while only 6 inamdars had executed the sale deed on 19.10.1967 in favour of K.S.Chetty, 10 more inamdars executed a release deed on 29.04.1968 also in his favour de-hors the decree in O.S.No.76 of 1971.
155. But even this document, having been executed without prior sanction of Collector under Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 or certificate under Section 50-B of the said Act by the Tahsildar cannot convey any title to K.S.Chetty.
156. Therefore the plea of the auction purchaser that the inamdars, having divested themselves of title to the subject land by executing the sale deed dt.19.10.1967 or the release deed dt.29.04.1968, cannot make any claim for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate, is untenable.
157. Therefore we hold that the auction purchasers also are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act for lands in Sy.No.366,367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
158. Though several submissions were made by all parties on the meaning of the term 'successors-in-interest' of inamdars occurring in the definition of the term 'inamdar' occurring in Section 2(d) of the Act and as to whether the said term applies only to legal heirs of inamdars or also to purchasers/alienees from inamdars between HAC,J & TA,J ::54:: wa_540_2007&batch 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973, we do not propose to go into the said question because both the Reddy Brothers Group and the auction- purchasers group, who raised such a plea, have been held by us to be disentitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate on other grounds. Whether the Inamdars Group is entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate?
159. Normally, once the claims of the Kabiz-e-Kadim / Reddy Brothers Group and the auction purchasers group are rejected, the inamdars ought to be entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in view of the language contained in sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
160. The said provision of law states that the Inamdar would be entitled to it other than for lands in respect of which Kabiz-e-Kadim, protected tenant, permanent tenant, non-protected tenant is entitled to be registered as occupant. Thus it implies that if there are no other eligible persons falling under Sections 5 to 8 of the Act, the inamdars ought to be given the Occupancy Right Certificate.
161. But serious objections have been raised by the Reddy Brothers group and the auction purchasers group as to the claims made by the persons Khaja Naseeruddin, s/o. Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Muneeruddin, s/o.Khaja Ahmaduddin and Khaja Ahmaduddin, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah and Khaja Abdul Rehman, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah and it is contended that they are not related to the inamdar Khaja Jalal.
HAC,J & TA,J
::55:: wa_540_2007&batch
162. It is contended that the claim in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda was made by G.P.A. Holders of Inamdars by name Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin, that there is no family tree filed showing the relationship of these persons with Khaja Jalal, the original grantee from the Jagirdar Maharaja Kishan Prashad under the muntakab in F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 (1919) and so they ought not to be granted the Occupancy Right Certificate.
163. The above 4 individuals had opposed the claim for Occupancy Right Certificate made by the protected tenant K.Sai Reddy and the Reddy Brothers i.e. Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Yadi Reddy, while claiming such certificate for themselves under Section 4 of the Act.
164. This aspect had been considered at length in the initial order in proceedings No.L/760/2001 dt.24.01.2004 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella.
The following are the findings in the said order:
(i) There is no dispute that the original grantee was Khaja Jalal. In column 8 of the Khasra Pahani dealing with 'name of pattadar/inamdar', the name of Khaja Jalal is mentioned for Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
(ii) It is also not in dispute that in the Chesala Pahani of 1955 to 1958, in column No.11, the name of Khaja Mohiuddin is recorded as Makthadar and the names of Khaja Abdullah, Khaja Hyder and Khaja HAC,J & TA,J ::56:: wa_540_2007&batch Bawa are mentioned as 'Hissedars' (sharers). It is mentioned that each of them has 0-4-0 share.
(iii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella held that in the share of Khaja Abdullah, his brother Khaja Meeran was a half share holder; that in File No.3/11/1329 Fasli (1919), Muntakab bearing No.1251 was issued according to which 'Mash' (i.e. Maqtha Jalal) was issued in favour of (i) Khaja Osman, (ii) Khaja Meeran (succeeded by his wife Banu Bee), Khaja Ali (succeeded by his son Khaja Abdullah), Khaja Shareef and Bawa Sahed Asghar Ali; consequent on the death of Khaja Meeran, succession was sanctioned in respect of his share in favour of his daughters Smt.Azeez Bee to the extent of 2/3rd share and 1/3rd share in favour of his wife Smt.Banu Bee for her lifetime and remaining would devolve on Khaja Abdullah and his brother; this was informed by the Assistant Nazim Atiyat vide his letter No.855 dt.26.11.1964 and a copy of the succession statement was also sent to the Collector, Hyderabad District.
(iv) The Revenue Divisional Officer also stated that in 1957, a dispute arose between the legal heirs of late Khaja Meeran and Khaja Moinuddin and others regarding correction of names and fixation of shares relating to the said land in the Khasra Pahani; on 22.08.1957, Smt.Azeez Bee, Smt.Banu Bee and Abdur Rehman applied for correction of entries in the Khasra Pahani; it was decided by the Naib Tahsildar / Deputy Tahsildar after taking evidence; and corrections were made in orders passed on 28.05.1958 in F.No.40/86/57. It is HAC,J & TA,J ::57:: wa_540_2007&batch stated that the shares were fixed in respect of 1/3rd share enjoyed by Khaja Meeran as follows:
"(a) Shri Khaja Osman S/o.Khaja Abdulla,
a) Original share 0-2-8
(b) Shri Khaja Ahmaduddin, b) Share acquired 0-0-7
-------
(c) Shri Khaja Abdur Rahman Total : 0-0-3
(d) Shri Khaja Yousuf -------
1) Smt.Babu Bee, W/o.Shri Khaja Meeran 0-0-4
(a) Smt.Vazeer Bee, D/o.Shri Khaja
(b) Smt.Azeez Bee, Meeran 0-1-9
-------
Total : 0-5-4
(v) Subsequently, the order records that Smt.Vazeer Bee died and
her son Abdur Rehman submitted a petition on 30.05.1959 before the Additional Collector, Hyderabad District for recording his name in place of his deceased mother and the said claim was allowed vide proceedings No.RDO.A/9677/58.
(vi) This was challenged by Smt.Banu Bee and Azeez Bee, wife and daughter of Khaja Meeran and Abdul Rehman before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West in F.No.A5/4342/58 under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulations 1358 Fasli. Khaja Moinuddin, Khaja Osman, Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdur Rehman, Khaja Yousuf (son of Khaja Abdullah), Khaja Hyder and Khaja Bawa were made defendants. The appellants sought removal of the names of the respondents from the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and to include their names.
(vii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West passed orders on 04.07.1962 holding that in the disputed lands, Khaja Meeran had HAC,J & TA,J ::58:: wa_540_2007&batch 0-5-4 share as per the decision of the Board of Revenue No.57/1354 in F.No.107/87 dt.22nd Mahar 1354 Fasli (1944) and that in the Muntakab of 'Daftar Peshi Sri Kishan Pershad Bahadur' No.362/1329 dt.21st Ardibeshth 1329 Fasli, Khaja Meeran was also registered as shareholder along with Khaja Sharif, Khaja Bawa, Khaja Osman and Khaja Hyder; that Khaja Bawa had been assigned specific lands; and so the main shareholders remained in the property are Shri Khaja Osman, S/o.Shri Khaja Ghouse, Shri Khaja Hyder and Shri Khaja Meeran, and they have 0-5-4 share.
(viii) It was further held that the heirs of Khaja Meeran are Khaja Abdullah (brother), Smt.Banu Bee (wife), Smt.Azeez Bee and Smt.Vazeer Bee (daughters); that Abdur Rehman would get the share of Smt.Vazeer Bee, his mother, on her death; and thus as per the decision of the Board of Revenue, Khaja Abdullah will get 0-2-8 and 0-0-7 share as brother of Khaja Meeran, Smt.Azeez Bee would get 0-0-10½ share, Abdur Rehman would get 0-0-10½ share and Smt.Banu Bee would get 0-0-4 share and that the Khasra Pahanis were corrected as above.
(ix) It was further observed that the entire landed property remained joint with symbolic shares and single unit legal heirs concerning such joint property cannot execute any sort of transactions independently.
(x) It was held that therefore Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdul Rehman, Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin are successors HAC,J & TA,J ::59:: wa_540_2007&batch of inamdars and they are entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificates since others are not entitled to the same.
165. To sum up, according to this order dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, though the grant was to Khaja Jalal sometime in 1919, as per the order dt.04.07.1962 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, late Khaja Meeran had a share 0-5-4 in the lands, and Khaja Abdullah got 0-2-8 and 0-0-7 being the brother of Khaja Meeran.
166. Khaja Ahmeduddin and Khaja Abdul Rehman are the sons of Khaja Abdullah. Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin are the sons of Khaja Ahmeduddin. These are the applicants for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
167. In the instant case, the Form-I application filed for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in regard to land in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda was signed by Khaja Ahmeduddin, Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin and though Abdul Rehman did not sign the Form-I, he did sign the affidavit enclosed to the said Form-I in December, 2006.
168. The Form-I application filed for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in regard to land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda was signed by Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin, both of whom are sons of Khaja Ahmeduddin (as G.P.A. Holders of Khaja HAC,J & TA,J ::60:: wa_540_2007&batch Ahmeduddin) and Khaja Abdul Rehman, son of late Khaja Abdullah. Thus the father had authorised his sons to represent him.
169. In our opinion, this order dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella exhaustively considers the lineage of Khaja Jalal and the applicants' (Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdul Rehman, Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin) relationship to him through Khaja Meeran, and what are the shares they are entitled to in the share of Khaja Meeran in the entire land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
170. Since a lot of material was relied upon in this order dt.24.01.2004 in proceedings No.L/760/2001 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, and in the subsequent proceedings thereafter no contra material placed by either the Reddy Brothers or auction purchasers group, and no challenge to the claim of these 4 persons for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate as successors of Inamdars was raised before other Authorities under the Act, and for the first time during the course of hearing of these Writ Petitions doubts were expressed about their relationship with Khaja Meeran / Khaja Jalal, we hold that this contention was raised by them as a mere after thought and there is no substance in it.
171. Any transactions entered into by one of the tenants in common in respect of property would not bind others if the parties are HAC,J & TA,J ::61:: wa_540_2007&batch Mohammedans. This principle was laid down authoritatively in T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha6. The Supreme Court declared:
"80. ... The Mohammedan law does not recognise the right of one of shareholders being tenants-in-common for acting on behalf of others. While discharging debt also they act as independent debtors. A co-sharer cannot create charge on property of co-heir. The right of Muslim heir is immediately defined in each fraction of estate. Notion of joint family property is unknown to Muslim law. Co-heir does not act as agent while discharging debt but is an independent debtor not as co-debtor or joint debtor. Co-sharers are not defined as joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees."
Therefore, any transactions entered into with Reddy Brothers or K.S.Chetty or auction purchasers by other members of the family of Khaja Jalal would not bind the persons claiming through Khaja Meeran (such as the applicants who filed Form-I seeking Occupancy Right Certificate as successors of inamdars and through Khaja Meeran).
172. As regards the proof of possession of the successors of inamdars as on 01.11.1973 is concerned, no doubt their names are not reflected in the Pahani of 1973-74 and the names of Reddy Brothers are found therein as persons in occupation of the lands as on the said date.
173. We have already pointed out earlier while rejecting the claim for Occupancy Right Certificate by Reddy Brothers that O.S.No.65 of 6 (2017) 7 SCC 342 HAC,J & TA,J ::62:: wa_540_2007&batch 1962 before the Munisf Magistrate, Taluk West, Hyderabad West was filed by Samala Narasimha Reddy, father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy, Mamidi Raji Reddy, father of Mamidi Yadi Reddy against Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others and they obtained a collusive decree dt.14.09.1962 by pleading only an agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960 without there being any sale deed; that such agreement of sale does not confer any interest and was also obtained without prior sanction of the Collector under Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and that the said suit is also hit by the bar for filing civil suits under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli.
A Faisal Patti was got prepared in 1979-80 in F.No.B1/3857/80 recording the names of Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy in the records of rights with retrospective effect on the basis of the above collusive decree.
But for such dubious exercise, the names of Reddy Brothers would not have been included in the Record of Rights or in any other Revenue records including the Pahani for 1973-74 (covering the date 01.11.1973) even though they were actually not in physical possession of the property. No credence can be given to such an entry obtained by such means.
Therefore the Pahanis must be presumed to retain the original entries showing the Inamdar's successors showing their possession prior to 1980 including as on 1.11.1973.
HAC,J & TA,J
::63:: wa_540_2007&batch
174. Under Section 4 of the Act, an inamdar or his successor is entitled to be registered as an occupant of the inamland which immediately before the date of vesting i.e. 01.11.1973 was under his personal cultivation.
Since Reddy Brothers' claim has been rejected by us in this order in spite of such entries in revenue records made in 1980 with retrospective effect about their possession of their lands, and admittedly there is no evidence that they were ever in physical possession prior thereto, the successors of inamdars are held as being in deemed possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda as on 01.11.1973.
This is because the names of Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy, the fathers of Reddy Brothers were substituted in 1980 for the names of inamdars such as Khaja Mohiuddin and others on the basis of the collusive decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962; and if such entries are not valid, the earlier entries are deemed to continue showing the possession of the inamdars' family members in the Pahani for 1973-74 covering the date 01.11.1973.
175. In this view of the matter, we hold that the successors of inamdars (i) Khaja Ahmeduddin, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah, (ii) Khaja Naseeruddin, s/o. Khaja Ahmeduddin, (iii) Khaja Muneeruddin s/o. Khaja Ahmeduddin and (iv) Abdul Rehman, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates under Section 4 HAC,J & TA,J ::64:: wa_540_2007&batch of the Act in respect of Ac.11.16 gts in Sy.Nos.366, Ac.16.12 gts in Sy.No.367 and Ac.11.29 gts in Sy.No.368 of Kanojiguda. Conclusion Having regard to the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by us, we propose to deal with the individual cases and the applications therein as under :
I. Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007 and I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2009 and I.A.No.1 of 2015:
(i) This Writ Appeal was in fact dismissed at the stage of admission by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 02.07.2007 wherein the protected tenant K.Sai Reddy challenged the orders dt.09.04.2007 in Writ Petition No.7093 of 2007 of the learned single Judge who had confirmed the order dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case Nos.F1/1677/2004 and F1/5839/2004 and also the order dt.24.01.2004 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District granting Occupancy Rights Certificates to the successors of Inamdars for the land admeasuring Acs.16.12 gts. in Sy.No.367 and Acs.11.29 gts. in Sy.No.368.
The auction purchasers seek to challenge the same as they were not made parties in the Writ Appeal by filing (a) an application for leave to file Review of the order dt.02.07.2007 in the Writ Appeal (I.A.No.1 of 2009), (b) a Review Petition to review the said order (I.A.No.2 of 2009),(c) an implead application HAC,J & TA,J ::65:: wa_540_2007&batch (I.A.No.3 of 2009), (d) a petition to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order dt.02.07.2007 in Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007, (e) an application to condone the delay in filing the Writ Appeal (I.A.No.5 of 2009) and (f) an application to bring on record legal representatives of a deceased party.
However, the counsel for the auction purchasers Smt. Anasuya who filed these applications stated that her clients have instructed her not to pursue these applications. Therefore, all these applications are dismissed.
II. Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008 :
This Writ Appeal is filed by the successors of Inamdars challenging the order dt.07.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Review Petition No.134796 of 2007 filed by them seeking a review of the order dt.08.03.2007 in Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007 by refusing to condone the delay in filing the same.
In that Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007, the successors of Inamdars had challenged the orders dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case Nos.F1/1677/ 2004, F1/5839/2004 and F1/5862/2005.
Having regard to the view we have taken in this batch of matters that the successors of the inamdars are entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate, Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008 is allowed; order dt.07.02.2008 in Review WPMP.No.134796 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007 is set aside; and the said Review HAC,J & TA,J ::66:: wa_540_2007&batch WPMP.No.134796 of 2007 is allowed; order dt.08.03.2007 in Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007 is set aside; and Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007 is allowed.
III. WRIT APPEAL (SR).No.47966 of 2010 This Writ Appeal is preferred by the auction purchasers challenging the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008 whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court set aside, at the instance of Mamidi Yadireddy, order dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.F1/1677/2004 and remanded the matter back to the said authority for fresh consideration to consider the rival claims of Sri M. Yadi Reddy and the successors of Inamdars.
I.A.No.s 1 of 2010 is filed for grant of leave to file the said Writ Appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2010 is filed seeking suspension of the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008, I.A.No.3 of 2010 is filed to condone the delay in filing the said Writ Appeal, I.A.No.4 of 2010 is filed to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order of the learned single Judge, and I.A.Nos.1 of 2015, 2 of 2015 and 3 of 2015 are filed to bring on record legal representatives of some of the parties who died. Though the learned Single Judge in the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008 held that the nature and character of the land was never in issue before the Joint Collector, since we have gone into the said issue as well and held that the subject land in Sy.No.s 366,267 and 368 of Kanojiguda is Inam Land, and HAC,J & TA,J ::67:: wa_540_2007&batch rejected the plea of the auction purchasers that it is Jagir land or patta land, and since the learned Single Jude only remitted the matter back to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration, we do not see any point in granting leave to the auction purchasers to challenge the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16680 of 2008 or to entertain the other applications filed by the auction purchasers therein.
Therefore, all the applications filed by the auction purchasers in the said Writ Appeal are dismissed, and consequently the said Writ Appeal is also dismissed.
IV. WRIT PETITION NO.5525 OF 2007 This Writ Petition was filed by Samala Bhoopal Reddy, one of the Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group challenging the order dt.24.02.2007 in Case No.F1/7177/2004 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District setting aside the order dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.
Since the claim of the Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate has been rejected by us in this order, this Writ Petition is dismissed and consequently I.A.No.1 of 2011 and I.A.No.1 of 2012 filed by certain parties seeking impleadment in the said Writ Petition are also dismissed.
V. WRIT PETITION NO.10127 OF 2007 This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchasers' group challenging order dt.24.02.2007 passed in File No.F1/5862/2005 of HAC,J & TA,J ::68:: wa_540_2007&batch the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District dismissing their appeal under Section 24 of the Act and holding that they are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate.
Since we have held in this order that the auction purchasers are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate, the said Writ Petition is dismissed along with I.A.Nos.1 of 2011, I.A.No.1 of 2015, I.A.No.2 of 2015, I.A.No.1 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021. VI. WRIT APPEAL No.1283 of 2009 :
This Writ Appeal is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy challenging the order dt.18.09.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.19551 of 2009 by a learned single Judge of this Court.
The said Writ Petition was filed by M. Ch. Kondaiah Choudhary and 38 others against the State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad and 5 others complaining of refusal of the police to provide protection to them for implementation of order dt.19.07.1999 in C.M.P.No.14048 of 1999 and to direct the police to give protection to them for safeguarding the land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda Village admeasuring Acs.39.07 gts.
At the stage of admission, the said Writ Petition was disposed of on a concession by the learned Government Pleader that they are ready to provide police protection and a direction was given to the police to provide the required protection to the petitioners. This order of the learned Single Judge was suspended in W.A.No.1283 of 2009 filed by Mamidi Yadireddy.
HAC,J & TA,J
::69:: wa_540_2007&batch
Since we have held that Mamidi Yadireddy/Reddy brothers is/are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate for the above land, the said Writ Appeal is dismissed, and the interim order granted therein is vacated. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2015 filed therein to bring on record legal representatives of some parties is also dismissed.
VII. Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009 This Writ Petition was filed by auction purchasers in a Court auction held in O.S.No.76 of 1971 on 19.10.1987 by the Court of the Additional Chief Judge - cum - Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad, i.e., auction purchasers, challenging order dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/08 dt.08.08.2008 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District confirming the order dt.25.02.2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.L/3590/2006 in respect of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda.
Since we have rejected the claims of auction purchasers for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of land in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.3 of 2009, I.A.No.1 of 2011, I.A.No.2 of 2011 and I.A.No.3 of 2011 are dismissed.
VIII. Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009 This Writ Petition is filed by successors of Inamdars Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin challenging the order HAC,J & TA,J ::70:: wa_540_2007&batch dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/2008 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District confirming the order dt.25.02.2008 in File No.L/3590/2006 in regard to extent of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda. Under the said order, the Reddy brothers were granted Occupancy Right Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer which was confirmed by the Joint Collector. Since the claims of the Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy Right Certificates in respect of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda has been rejected by us in this order, and we have held that the successors of Inamdars are entitled to the Occupancy Rights Certificate for this land, this Writ Petition is allowed; order dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/2008 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and order dt.25.02.2008 in File No.L/3590/2006 are both set aside; and it is held that the successors of Inamdars are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate for this land. Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2012 filed by some third- party seeking impleadment therein is dismissed. IX. Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010 This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchasers questioning the order dt.28.05.2010 in proceedings No.L/35/2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division granting Occupancy Right Certificate for the land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda to the successors of Inamdars without availing the remedy of Appeal under Section 24 of the Act.
HAC,J & TA,J
::71:: wa_540_2007&batch
Since we have held in this order that the auction purchasers are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of these two survey numbers, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2010 and I.A.No.3 of 2015 are both dismissed.
X. Writ Petition No.408 of 2012 This Writ Petition is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy challenging the order dt.14.12.2011 in Case No.F1/1718/2010 confirming the order dt.28.05.2010 in File No.L/35/2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to the successors of Inamdars.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed and Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 6 and 7 of 2012: 1 of 2013: 1, 2 and 3 of 2014; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of 2015; 1 and 2 of 2016; 1 of 2017; 1 & 2 of 2018; and 1 of 2019 filed therein are dismissed.
XI. Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012 This Writ Petition is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy seeking a direction to the official respondents for restoration of their names in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land in HAC,J & TA,J ::72:: wa_540_2007&batch Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and 1 of 2013 and 1 of 2015 are dismissed.
XII. Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014 This Writ Petition was filed by the successors of Inamdars challenging order dt.17.10.2014 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/870/2014, F1/874/2014, F1/890/2014, F1/898/2014 and F1/1797/2014 holding that the order dt.03.03.2014 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division is premature in view of the interim order granted on 15.01.2014 in WPMP.No.519 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.408 of 2014 prohibiting passing of final orders with regard to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and holding that the Appeals are not maintainable.
In view of the orders now passed in these Writ Petitions, the said Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014 is disposed of directing the respondents to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate to the successors of Inamdars. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2014 filed therein is dismissed.
XIII. Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014 This Writ Petition is filed by the Inamdars challenging an order dt.21.01.2012 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District rejecting a Review Petition filed by S.Bhoopal Reddy to Review his order dt.14.12.2011 remanding the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella.
HAC,J & TA,J
::73:: wa_540_2007&batch
In the order dt.21.01.2012, the Joint Collector stated that there is no need to review the matter and S. Bhoopal Reddy can approach the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case was remanded to him. In this Writ Petition the Inamdars contended that the Joint Collector has no power of Review under the Act. Having regard to the fact that we have held that the successors of Inamdars are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, no orders are necessary in this Writ Petition and it is closed. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2014 therein is dismissed. XIV. Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015 This Writ Petition was filed by S.Bhoopal Reddy challenging order dt.17.10.2014 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/870/2014, F1/874/2014, F1/890/2014, F1/898/2014 and F1/1797/2014 holding that the order dt.03.03.2014 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division is premature in view of the interim order granted on 15.01.2014 in WPMP.No.519 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.408 of 2014 prohibiting passing of final orders with regard to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and holding that the Appeals are not maintainable. This Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015 is dismissed for the reasons contained in this order. Consequently, I.A.No.1, 2 and 5 of 2015 filed therein are dismissed.
HAC,J & TA,J
::74:: wa_540_2007&batch
XV. Writ Appeal (SR).No.12789 of 2015
This Writ Appeal is filed by one C.V.S. Mahalakshmi claiming to be a purchaser of 250 Sq.yds. from S. Narasimha Reddy. She sought leave to file Writ Appeal against the judgment dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 are leave applications, I.A.No.3 of 2015 is a suspension petition and I.A.No.3 of 2016 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Writ Appeal.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, we do not deem it necessary to grant leave to the appellant to file this Writ Appeal.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 are dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal (SR).No.127899 of 2015 and I.A.Nos.3 of 2015 and 3 of 2016 are also dismissed. FINAL CONCLUSION
176. In the result, we hold that the successors of inamdars are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act in respect of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, H/o. Alwal, Ranga Reddy District, and that the Reddy Brothers/ Kabiz-e- Kadim Group and the auction purchasers are not entitled to the same. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said land to successors of inamdars within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on complying with all other formalities prescribed by law.
HAC,J & TA,J
::75:: wa_540_2007&batch
177. No costs.
178. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these matters shall stand closed.
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ _______________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J Date : 28.09.2021 Svv/Vsv/Ndr