THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.505 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader
for Revenue for the official respondents.
2. This intra court appeal takes an exception to the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9999 of 2010, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are legal heirs of one Mr. Veera Chary. It was averred in the writ petition that one Mr. Kammari Radhaiah, namely the grandfather of appellant No.1, was in possession of the land measuring Ac.0.22 guntas of Survey No.11 of Raidurg Navakhasla Village. The successor in title of respondent Nos.4 to 10 2 filed an application under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") for grant of occupancy rights certificate (ORC). The Inams Tribunal by an order dated 09.05.1995 issued ORC in favour of one Mr. Ramesh Pershad and in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 10. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal under Section 24 of the Act, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 11.03.2010. The appellants thereupon challenged the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Joint Collector in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.04.2010 has dismissed the writ petition.
4. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was not a speaking order. It is also submitted that the compromise recorded in O.S.No.174 of 1982 was denied by the 3 appellants. It is contended that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector were per se illegal. However, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record.
8. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that as per the extract of pahani for the year 1973-1974, Mr. Kammari Radhaiah and Mr. Suraj Bhan were shown in possession of patta land. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued ORC in favour of Mr. Ramesh Pershad and his legal representatives, namely the unofficial respondents in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has noticed that even though the appellants claim to be successors of Mr. Kammari Radhaiah, but no material was placed by them on record before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the challenge at 4 the instance of the appellants to the order passed by the appellate authority under the Act cannot be entertained. The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ petition.
9. In the absence of any material on record to show that the appellants are the legal representatives of Mr. Kammari Radhaiah, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
10. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 12.10.2023 Myk/vs