THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Writ Appeal No.29 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned senior counsel
for the appellants and Mr.Prakash Chakravarthy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8. We have also heard
Mr.T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.7532 of 2015 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners.
3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the second respondent i.e., Joint Collector of Medak District (briefly 'Joint Collector' hereinafter).
24. Initially Occupancy Right Certificate was granted in favour of the appellants vide proceedings dated 09.08.2006 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak Division, Medak District (briefly 'Revenue Divisional Officer' hereinafter). This was appealed against by respondent Nos.5 to 8 under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (briefly 'the 1955 Act' hereinafter) before the Joint Collector.
5. Joint Collector partly allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer for a de novo enquiry on two grounds
(i) who was in actual possession over the subject land as on 01.11.1973 which is the date of vesting for issuance of Occupancy Right Certificate? and (ii) genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed dated 14.04.1965 relied upon by the appellants and whether appellants were in possession over the subject land pursuant to such sale deed?
6. We may mention that the subject land is land admeasuring Ac.6 - 06 gts in Sy.No.256/EE situated at 3 Shivampet Village, Pulkal Mandal in Medak District. This remand order of the Joint Collector was not appealed against and hence has attained finality.
7. After remand, Revenue Divisional Officer answered the first ground in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8, while answering the second ground against the appellants vide the order dated 07.09.2013. This was assailed in appeal by the appellants before the Joint Collector under Section 24 of the 1955 Act. By the order dated 05.02.2015, Joint Collector dismissed the appeal.
8. It was thereafter that the related writ petition came to be filed. By the order dated 14.09.2021, learned Single Judge concurred with the findings rendered by the Joint Collector and dismissed the writ petition.
9. Hence the appeal.
10. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the orders of the lower authority below. As already noticed above, Occupancy 4 Right Certificate was granted in favour of the appellants by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated 09.08.2006. This came to be challenged by respondent Nos.5 to 8 before the Joint Collector by filing appeal under Section 24 of the 1955 Act. Joint Collector vide the order dated 09.08.2012 took the view that there was a lacunae in issuance of Occupancy Right Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the proceedings dated 09.08.2006 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of Revenue Divisional Officer for a de novo enquiry on two grounds:
(i) The actual possession over the subject land as on 01.11.1973 which is the date of vesting for issuance of Occupancy Right Certificate.
(ii) The genuineness of the alleged sale deed, whether the purchasers were in possession over the said land or not if they had purchased the said land.
11. On remand Revenue Divisional Officer once against heard both the sides and perused the materials on record. Insofar ground (i) is concerned, Revenue Divisional Officer held as follows:
5"The actual possession over the subject matter of the land as on 01.11.1973 which is the date of vesting for issuance of the Occupancy Right Certificate.
It is seen from the extract of Pahanies for the year 1972-73, and 1973-74, the name of Vodla Ramiah S/o.Buchaiah was recorded in column No.11 of the Pahanies and classification of the land shown as Chowthai Inam and in occupation column the names of Vodla Ramaiah S/o. Buchaiah recorded. Therefore seems on face of it established that the father of the petitioners was Inamdars over the land in Sy.No.256/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6- 06 gts, of Shivampet Village, and his name is also recorded in occupation column Pahanies for the year 1972-73, 1973-74, on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973 and as such Vodla Ramaiah father of the petitioners herein is entitled for the Occupancy Right Certificate for the land in Sy.No.256/A extent of Ac.6-06 gts, of Shivampet village, of Pulkal Mandal, Medak District as he was in possession of the said land as on the date vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Vodla Ramaiah died leaving behind his legal heirs who are the petitioners herein are for grant 6 of Occupancy Right Certificate in place of Vodla Ramaiah Inamdar under Section 4 of AP(TA) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955.
Whereas the respondents herein claimed the Occupancy Right Certificate based on the sale deed No.470 of 1965, purchased by Amruth Rao S/o.Laxman Rao, fore father of the respondents herein and the then Revenue Divisional Officer while taking into the account of this sale deed granted the Occupancy Right Certificate as successor-in interest of the Inamdar. As discussed above when the sale deed No.470 of 1965, is void and nullity under Sections 47 and 48 of Tenancy Act, 1950, and also as per the reported case of the Apex Court in 1995 (3) SCC Page 291, in LokaRaj and others Vs. Kishanlal and others this sale deed cannot be considered and the respondents herein have no locus standi to claim Occupancy Right Certificate on the guise of the sale deed Document No.470 of 1965.
In fact Vodla Ramaiah father of the petitioners herein was in possession of the said land as on the 01.11.1973 on the date of vesting, and the petitioners herein are entitled for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate and as such the issue answered accordingly."
712. Thus, according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was in possession of the subject land as on 01.11.1973. Therefore it is they who are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate.
13. Insofar ground (ii) is concerned, Revenue Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the sale deed of 1965 relied upon by the appellants was not a genuine one and held as follows:
"As discussed above the sale deed No.470 of 1965 is not valid in the eye of law and it is void nullity and non-est in the eye of law on the following grounds:
(a) Both the vendor and vendee of the sale deed document No.470 of 1965 have not obtained the permission under Sections 47 and 48 of AP(TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950, which is mandatory at that period. The sections were repealed by an Act 12 of 1969 w.e.f 18.03.1969.
Therefore the sale deed without obtaining permission under Sections 47 and 48 of Tenancy Act, 1950 is not 8 valid as held by the High Court and Apex Court in several cases.
(b) Secondly this sale deed was executed by the vendor in favour of the vendee without obtaining Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of AP(TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955, and Apex Court is a reported a case 1955 (3) SCC Page 291 held that any sale of Inam lands before grant of Occupancy Right Certificate is not valid in law and such this sale deed is also not valid nullity non-est in the eye of law.
As per both the cases is proved beyond iota of doubt this sale deed No.470 of 1965, is not genuine one in the eye of law and this sale deed is not executable whether those purchasers are in possession or not on the said lands."
14. On the basis of the above findings, Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order dated 07.09.2013 holding as follows:
"As discussed above and circumstances of the case it is prima facie proved that Vodla Ramaiah, the father of the petitioners herein is Inamdar and also in possession of the said land 9 in Sy.No.256/A, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-06 gts situated at Shivampet Village, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District, on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973, the petitioners father was in possession of the subject land as such the petitioners father was in possession of the subject land as such the petitioners are entitled for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the AP(TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955.
During the enquiry it is revealed that Vodla Ramaiah died long back and the petitioners are the legal heirs of Vodla Ramaiah, and as such they are entitled Occupancy Right Certificate in place of Vodla Ramaiah, in respect of Sy.No.256/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6- 06 gts of Shivampet Village of Pulkal Mandal, Medak District under Section 4 of AP(TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955. Accordingly the claim of the petitioners herein is allowed. Whereas as on discussed above the claim of the respondents is not considered based on the alleged sale deed document No.470 of 1965, and they are also not in possession of the said land on the date of vesting. Therefore the claim of the respondents is hereby rejected as not maintainable."
1015. According to the Revenue Divisional Officer, father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 Vodla Ramaiah was the Inamdar in respect of the subject land and on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973 he was in possession of the subject land. Therefore, respondent Nos.5 to 8 are entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the 1955 Act. Thus, claim of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was allowed.
Revenue Divisional Officer while discarding the sale deed as unreliable, also recorded a finding of fact that appellants were not in possession over the subject land on the date of vesting.
16. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.09.2013 came to be challenged by the appellants before the Joint Collector by filing appeal under Section 24 of the 1955 Act. By the order dated 05.02.2015, Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.09.2013 in the following manner:
6. The matter has been examined with reference to the averments of the appeal petition 11 and written arguments filed by both the parties and records available and the following are the orders.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak in her orders observed that, in the records such as Khasra Pahani 1954-55, Sesala Pahani 1955 to 1958 and Pahanies for the year 1972 - 73, 1973 - 74 and ROR register form No.1-A for the year 1989-90, the name of Vodla Ramaiah has been recorded as Inamdar and classification of land shown as Chowthai Inam land.
8. At the time of execution of the sale deed i.e., 14.04.1965, sections 47 and 48 of AP(TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1950 was in force and permission of the revenue authorities was mandatory and as evident that, in this matter no such permission was obtained by the vendor or vendee. As such the sale deed is void, abinitio, nullity and non-est in the eye of law as reported in the judgment of the Apex Court in 1995 (3) SCC Page 291, Lokaraj Vs. Krishnalal and others and as well as 2007 (2) ALD Page
28.
9. Further with regard to the crucial aspect pointed out by the respondents which are said to have not been observed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak in passing the orders 12 in the file No.H/2189/2006, dated 09.08.2006, for which gone through the records and observed as under:
As seen from the extract of the Pahanis for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74 the name of Vodla Ramaiah S/o.Buchaiah was recorded in column No.11 and in occupation column the name of Vodla Ramaiah was recorded. As such father of respondents was Inamdar over the subject matter land and he is entitled for the grant of O.R.C. The petitioner is claiming for the O.R.C on the sale took place in the year 1965 when sections 47 and 48 of the AP(TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1950 was in force and permission of the revenue authorities was mandatory and in this matter no such permission was obtained by the vendor or vendee. As such, the sale deed cannot be considered and have no locus standi to claim O.R.C on the guise of sale deed.
10. In view of the above narrations it is clear that, Sri Vadla Ramaiah S/o. Buchaiah was Inamdar and also in possession of the 13 subject matter land as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973 and he is entitled for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of AP(TA) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and since the Inamdar was expired and the LRs of the Inamdar were eligible for grant of O.R.C and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak has rightly passed orders in file No.H/3881/2012 dated 07.09.2013 granting O.R.Cs to the respondents herein.
11. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere into the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak granting O.R.Cs to the respondents herein in file No.H/3881/2012 dated 07.09.2013.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
17. Learned Single Judge considered the matter afresh and observed that appellants were having their claim on an unregistered sale deed dated 14.04.1965, which in any event was barred by Sections 47 and 48 of the 1955 Act. Learned Single Judge further observed that if according to the appellants, name of father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was recorded as possessor on 01.11.1973, through manipulation, then they ought to have assailed 14 the same before the competent civil court, but no such steps were taken by them.
18. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief sought for by the appellants and dismissed the writ petition vide the order dated 14.09.2021.
19. We see no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As already noted above, the Revenue Divisional Officer had recorded a finding of fact that father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was in actual possession over the subject land as on 01.11.1973 and therefore he was the Inamdar. Being the legal heirs of the Inamdar, respondent Nos.5 to 8 are entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate which had been rightly issued to them.
20. Insofar the contra claim of the appellants is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the Revenue Divisional Officer inasmuch as the sale deed dated 15 14.04.1965 is an unregistered one, besides being barred by Sections 47 and 48 of the 1955 Act.
21. This finding of fact rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, which came to be further fortified by the order of the learned Single Judge.
22. That being the position, we see no good ground to entertain the appeal.
23. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J 25.04.2023 MRM