THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.311 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. P.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel representing
Mr. S.U.V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned
Government Pleader attached to the office of learned
Advocate General for the respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.29386 of 1995, has been dismissed.
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
4. The appellants claim to be in possession of land measuring Acs.5.29 guntas of Survey No.102/1 situate at Hakimpet Village, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District 2 (hereinafter referred to as, "the subject land"). The appellants filed an application under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The aforesaid application was allowed by an order dated 25.08.1994 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In compliance of the aforesaid order, on 01.09.1994, ORC was issued to the appellants.
5. The State Government, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, who by an order dated 16.12.1995 allowed the appeal. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 16.12.1995 was assailed by the appellants in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 13.11.2009 has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the subject land was granted to the ancestors of the 3 appellants for 'Neerudi' service. It is further submitted that the Special Court by an order dated 07.09.1992 held that the appellant No.1 and other respondents therein are not the land grabbers and the fact whether the inam land was granted towards 'Neerudi' service requires an adjudication after an enquiry.
7. It is further submitted that enquiry under the Act could not have been made. It is also contended that the Joint Collector is not the competent authority to decide the issue pertaining to title of the appellants.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has stated that the subject land is not recorded as inam land in the Inam Takhta Register of Hakimpet Village, but is recorded as Government land. It is further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not conduct a proper enquiry to determine the fact whether or not the land in question is inam land. It is also submitted that the appellants failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their claim. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate authority are based on 4 appreciation of material available on record and the same have rightly not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge and therefore, no interference is called for in this intra court appeal.
9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
10. The appellate authority examined the records of the initial survey conducted in 1330 F, the revised survey in 1334 F, the Inam Takhta Register of Hakimpet Village, the pahanies, the faisal patties and the Town Survey Land Register. The appellate authority thereupon recorded a specific finding that the ORC was issued for the property which was not an inam within the meaning of the Act. It was further held that the subject land is Government land and the appellants have failed to establish the grant of inam in their favour. It was also held that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued the ORC without any basis. The learned Single Judge has examined the findings of the appellate authority and affirmed the findings recorded by the appellate authority that that land in question is not an 5 inam land. It was further held that the subject land was recorded as Sarkari Kariz Katha in the Inam Takhta Register and the record does not show that the same was ever recorded as inam land. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the appellants have failed to plead or establish the fact that the Inam Takhta Register of Hakimpet Village records the schedule land as inam granted for discharging 'Neerudi' service. It was further held that the appellants have also not assailed the Hakimpet Village records either before the Revenue Divisional Officer or the appellate authority, namely the Joint Collector. The learned Single Judge therefore has affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority.
11. The finding whether or not the land in question is an inam land or not within the meaning of the Act is a finding of fact. The appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge, on the basis of material available on record, have held that the land in question is not an inam land, but is a Government land. The appellants have failed to adduce any material on record in support of their plea that 6 the land in question was an inam land. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority as well as by the learned Single Judge neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in this intra court appeal.
12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 12.10.2023 vs