THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.796 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble t`he Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. G.Raghupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader
for Revenue for respondents No.1 and 2.
None appears for the unofficial respondents.
2. This intra Court appeal is filed against the common order dated 10.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.21627 of 2008 by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.11 has been allowed and the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Joint Collector has been set aside. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
3. The subject matter of this appeal is the land measuring Acs.9.00 in Survey No.91 situate in Bowenpally 2 Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as, "the subject land"). The aforesaid land was an inam land and one Ghulam Moinuddin was said to be the inamdar of the land. The subject land was purchased by one C.Sathaiah vide sale deed dated 20.11.1966 after surrender of tenancy rights by one Vanam Achaiah @ Achi Reddy, who was declared as a protected tenant of the subject land vide. Thereafter, C.Chandraiah and his family members were put in possession of the subject land.
4. Respondents No.3 to 8 in this appeal claim title on the basis of lease deed dated 08.02.1963 executed in favour of respondents No.7 and 8. There was a dispute with regard to possession in respect of the subject land which led to initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Executive Magistrate found that respondents No.3 to 8 were in possession of the subject land and the possession was delivered to them. The order passed by the Executive Magistrate was assailed in a revision, namely 3 Crl.R.C.No.310 of 1969. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 24.04.1970 allowed the revision and held that C.Chandraiah and his brothers are in possession and are entitled to possession.
5. Respondents No.7 and 8 filed a suit, namely O.S.No.2 of 1972, seeking the relief of declaration of title and injunction against C.Chandraiah and others. The aforesaid suit, vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.1979, was dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed, vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1986, in an appeal, namely C.C.C.A.No.62 of 1980. The Letters Patent Appeal, namely L.P.A.No.61 of 1986, was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in S.Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli Chandraiah 1. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thus, the claim of respondents No.3 to 8 qua C.Chandraiah attained finality, as their claim seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction was dismissed. 1 1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB) 4
6. One Mustafa Sharief, who is father of respondents No.3 to 6, claiming to be inamdar of the land initiated proceeding for resumption of the land. The Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 30.11.1977 directed resumption of the land in favour of the said Mustafa Sharief. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 14.08.1986, also granted occupancy rights in favour of Mustafa Sharief. Against the order granting occupancy rights, C.Chandraiah and others filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which was allowed on 06.04.1988 and the matter was remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer for de novo enquiry.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereafter again granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.7 and 8. The aforesaid order granting occupancy rights was challenged in an appeal before the Joint Collector, who by an order dated 06.12.1988 set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and again remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for de novo enquiry.
5
8. The Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 22.06.1991 allowed the claim of respondents No.3 to 8. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was confirmed by the Joint Collector by an order dated 09.03.1993. The order passed in appeal was challenged by C.Chandraiah and others in a revision, namely C.R.P.No.665 of 1994. The said civil revision petition was tagged along with L.P.A.No.61 of 1986. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.1994 set aside the order of the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
9. After the remand of the matter by the Division Bench of this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 11.07.1996 granted occupancy rights in favour of C.Chandraiah and his brothers and the claim of respondents No.3 to 8 was negatived.
10. The aforesaid order was assailed by the appellants herein in an appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 6 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") before the Joint Collector, who by an order dated 10.07.2007 disposed of the said appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.07.1996 and by directing the parties to approach the Special Tribunal for appropriate remedy.
11. Thereupon, respondent No.11 challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Joint Collector in the writ petition, namely W.P.No.21627 of 2008, before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by a common order dated 10.06.2016 allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that (i) the title of Ghulam Moinuddin, who was vendor of C.Chandraiah and his brothers, has been affirmed in all the civil proceedings initiated by respondents No.7 and 8 and the claim of respondents No.7 and 8 for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction has been negatived by all the Courts, including the Supreme Court;
(ii) the lease of inam land by the protected tenant in favour of respondents No.7 and 8 amounts to assignment of his 7 interest, which is prohibited under Section 30 of the Act, and is therefore void; (iii) the lease executed by Vanam Achaiah @ Achi Reddy required registration and the unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence; (iv) the appeal by the appellants was filed after a delay of 10 years without filing any application seeking condonation of delay;
(v) after a period of ten years, when the occupancy rights were granted in favour of C.Chandraiah and his brothers, it is not open for the Joint Collector to unsettle the settled things by relying on Section 9 of the Act and by taking the status of the land to be a non-agricultural land.
12. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Joint Collector and allowed the writ petition.
13. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra Court appeal has been filed.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that no notice of the proceeding of the Inams Tribunal which 8 culminated in the order dated 11.07.1996 was given to the predecessors in title of the appellants. It is further submitted that after the order was passed by the Inams Tribunal on 11.07.1996, the appellants purchased the land by sale deed dated 12.05.2005. The appellants thereafter came to know about the order of the Inams Tribunal dated 11.07.1996 and applied for a copy of the order on 07.02.2006, which was served to them on 18.02.2006. The appellants thereafter filed Appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of knowledge on 06.03.2006 and therefore, the same was within limitation. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge in C.R.P.No.3848 of 2018 (M.Ramulamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri), dated 03.06.2019. It is further submitted that the inamdar of the subject land was one Mustafa Sharief and respondents 3 to 6 are his sons, who had sold the land to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, who in turn sold the land to the appellants on 12.05.2005. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the 9 Joint Collector and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
15. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the Joint Collector has not dealt with various grounds on which the order was passed by the Inams Tribunal and without assigning any reasons a finding has been recorded that the subject land is used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector.
16. We have considered the rival submissions on both sides and have perused the record.
17. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeal from orders under Section 10 to the prescribed authority. It provides that any aggrieved person by a decision of the Collector under Section 10, may within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority 10 may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority.
18. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. R.K.B.K.Limited 2 has held that the order becomes effective only on the date of its receipt and an uncommunicated order cannot be challenged. Therefore, the Supreme Court by applying the principle of purposive construction of statutes has held that words "from the date of the order", if the same is construed to mean that the date of an order, would be date of passing of order, though not made effective would lead to absurdity. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was taken note of by the learned Single Judge in C.R.P.No.3848 of 2018 and the appeal in that case was also held to be within limitation as the same was filed within a period of thirty days from the date of knowledge.
19. In the instant case, from the material available on record, it is evident that the appellants came to know about the order of the Inams Tribunal and thereafter, they 2 (2012) 6 SCC 384 11 applied for a copy of the order on 07.02.2006, which was served to them on 18.02.2006. Therefore, the appeal was filed on 06.03.2006. Thus, the appeal appears to have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of knowledge and therefore, the same is held to be within limitation.
20. From a perusal of the order of Inams Tribunal dated 11.07.1996, it is evident that it has dealt with rival contentions and has considered the impact of previous rounds of litigation between the parties and has recorded its finding as follows:
Thus, it is clear that Vanam Achi Reddy is not the tenant to Sri Mustafa Sharief. The Revenue Divisional Office of 9-00 Acs said to be held by Sri Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy who are said to have been purchased from P.Ts from Vanam Achaiah Alias Achi Reddy under a lease deed dated 08.02.1963. Sri Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy are going on agitating and claiming occupancy rights certificate under I.A.Act for the said 9-00 Acs. But the various Courts in elaborate processing held that under Sec. 30 of the A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, sub-12
lease of the land held by P.T. is prohibited and not accepted the lease deed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.2/72 which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and also Supreme Court and especially the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in L.P.A.No.61/86 the plaintiffs (petitioners 6 and 7 herein) have been found to be not entitled to the possession of the land in question for their own right and that their possession pursuant to the orders of the Court and cultivation done by them therein would to the benefit of the persons who are held entitled to the possession thereof. Thus, it is very clear that Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy has no locus standi on 9-00 Acs. lands in dispute between Samala Veera Reddy, Malla Reddy and Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah is rightful possessor who had been in possession of the land along with Vanam Achaiah alias Achi Reddy subsequently in the year 1966 surrendered his rights to his co-tenant under legal proceedings to the respondents herein as they are in possession form the inception of the tenancy rights in pursuant of the actual inamdars, Sri Gulam Mohiuddin and others who executed registered release deed in favour of Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah and brothers, the respondents herein. Thus, Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy neither PTs nor Non-PTs of 13 Mustafa Sharief the petitioners No.1 herein and resumption of 2-00 Acs. From out of 9-00 Acs held by Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs Chatlapalli Chandraiah and brothers is not tenable.
It is evident from the judgment in O.S.No.2/72 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and also Supreme Court. In para 76 of the said judgment, it is observed that :
"Apart from the above features, the factum of surrender of tenancy rights by Vanam Achaiah along with Tahsil file No. also finds place in the judgment. Lastly, it is to be seen in the penultimate para of Ex.4-37 that Mustafa Sharief and his sister Raheemunnisa Begum are said to be entitled 14 acres 22 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.91. It is in the evidence of P.W.7, Narayana Reddy that he purchased 10-
00 Acs. of land in Sy.No.91 from Gulam
Mohiuddin (presently husband of
Raheemunnisa Begum) and P.W.8
Peddenti Malla Reddy also testified that he purchased 5-00 Acs. of land along with his younger brother Narsimha Reddy from Mustafa Sharief. Both of 14 them stated that the aforesaid land from part of sy.No.91 Ex-A-37 lands support to the evidence of P.w.7 with regard to various notices of Sy.No.91 falling of various shareholders and also about Mohd. Suleman one of the inamdars migrated to Pakistan and his share being taken over by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. That apart, Ex.A-37 itself shows that Mustafa Sharief and Raheemunnisa Begum are entitled to 14-22 ½ Acs. only in Sy.No.91. Admittedly, P.W.7 has purchased about 15-00 Acs of land from Mustafa Sharief and Gulam Mohiuddin (husband of Raheemunnisa Begum).
Hence, there is able evidence to show that defendant No.6 Mustafa Sharief and his sister have sold away their share of the entire land and nothing remains for them in Sy.No.91. I am therefore Vaddevani Bhavi, the suit land and that it belongs to Gulam Mohiuddin and brothers.
In view of the above circumstances, the left over resumption land of Mustafa Sharief is restricted to 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bowenpally (Village), Balanagar (Mandal) stands holds good, since neither the PTs nor Non-PTs nor 15 inamdars were filed any appeals to the extent of 0- 10 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bowenpally Village.
Therefore, Mustafa Sharief died per L.Rs the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for occupancy rights certificate only to the extent of 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
In respect of the petitioners 6 and 7 as held by Hon'ble High Court in LPA No.6/86 and CBP 665/94 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court have no status to claim occupancy rights under Abolition of Inams Act. Accordingly, their claim for occupancy rights certificate in respect of Sy.No.91 to the extent of 7-00 Acs is rejected.
Regarding claims of Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per L.Rs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah, Ramulu and Mallesh, it could be seen that according to the judgment of various Courts, which were ultimately endorsed by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, that the possession held by the petitioner Nos.6 and 7 is illegal and contrary to the law, as they continued in possession by virtue of 145 proceedings and subsequent interim injunction orders in various suits, their possession has to be construed as the possession of respondents herein to the extent of 9-00 Acs in Sy.No.91 as they were in possession to the extent of 9-00 Acs. by virtue of 16 the release deed executed by the actual inamdars Sri Gulam Mohiuddin and others and P.T. who surrendered his rights to co-tenant Sri Chatlapalli Sathaiah.
Therefore, respondents Sri C.Chandraiah, C.Ramulu and C.Mallesh sons of late Sathaiah are entitled for occupancy rights certificate under Section 4(1)(8) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, by virtue of Release Deed dated 20.11.1966 on payment of premium amount of Rs.1,475/- under the following head of account:
Head of Account 0029 - Land Revenue 01 - Land Revenue 01 - Ryotwari Misc 96 - Net Receipts
21. The aforesaid order passed by the Inams Tribunal has been set aside by the Joint Collector in an Appeal under Section 24 of the Act in a casual and cavalier manner and it has been held as follows:
The appellants are seeking claim in the capacity of bonafide purchasers of the plots/houses bearing No.8-5-210/104 (old No.5-390) in Plot No.104 measuring Acs.222.22 square yards under registered document No.3725/2005 executed in 17 favour of the petitioner No.1, house bearing No.8-5-
210/99 (old No.5-383) in Plot No.99 measuring 104 square yards under registered document No.4107/2004 executed in favour of the petitioner No.2 and house bearing No.8-5-210/105 (old No.5-
389) in Plot No.105 measuring 194.44 square yards under registered document No.3725/2005 executed in favour of the petitioner No.3 in respect of Sy.No.91 situated at Old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On the other hand, the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents 8 to 10 on the basis of release deed dated 20.11.1966.
The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal has reported vide Lr.No.B/2966/2006 dated 21.02.2007, the ground position in respect of Sy.No.91 of Old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal as under:
1. Houses, Building, Road - Acs.52-37 guntas 2. Plots/Open Place - 2178 square yards 3. Temples - 1000 square yards 4. School - 600 square yards 5. Theatre - 2400 square yards
Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by implication, prescribes issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of non- agricultural lands.
18Amplifying the scope of Section 9, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.P.Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District (2004 (5) ALD 644) has held as under:
"The term agricultural or non- agricultural purposes is not defined under the Act. However, for the purpose of Section 9, it is sufficient if the land is put to non-agricultural purposes. The reason or justification is outside this scope of enquiry under the provisions of the act. The Collector will assume jurisdiction to decide the claims under Section 10 only, if the lands were put to agricultural use. Though in Form 1, the relevant date is mentioned as 20-7- 1955, in view of subsequent legislative changes and judicial pronouncements, the crucial date now stands as 1-11-
1973. In Sections 4 and 5, the
expression cultivates personally is
used, whereas in Sections 6, 7 and 8
the expression under his personal
cultivation is employed. They constitute the jurisdictional facts, for exercise of power under Section 10 and Inamdar, Kazim-e-kadim or tenant may have an excellent ground or jurisdiction, for not 19 undertaking activities of cultivation in the inam lands. But once such land is found to be not under cultivation, the Collector ceases to have power to deal with the same under Section 10. Further, the contesting respondents clearly stated that the land is put to non-agricultural purposes.
In its wisdom, the Legislature mandated that the adjudication of the claims in relation to the buildings and non-agricultural inam lands, be, undertaken by a specialized forum, and not by the Collector."
In the instant case, it is evident that the subject land is used for non-agricultural purposes.
Thus, it is clear that grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 4 is not permissible in respect of lands converted to non-agricultural use.
In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division by the impugned order has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of lands covered by structures/plots. The same is without jurisdiction and is therefore ab initio void. 20
It is not open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers under Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Section 24(2) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 stipulates that if any question arises as to whether "any land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority". Rule 18(2) of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 lay down that for the purpose of Section 24(2), the Special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority. Vide G.O.Ms.No.1613, dated 13.12.1975, District and Sessions Judges are constituted as "Special Tribunals" for the purpose of the Act.
As such, in respect of cases covered by Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, it is the Special Tribunals, and not Revenue Authorities, which can exercise jurisdiction.
In the instant case, vide the impugned proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer has exercised jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. As such, the impugned proceeding suffers from lack of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
Therefore, the impugned proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in Case No.L/4209/1994 dated 11.07.1996 is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to approach the Special Tribunal for appropriate remedy. 21
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
22. The order passed by the Joint Collector suffers from vice and non-application of mind inasmuch as it has not dealt with various grounds and various issues which arise for consideration in the appeal. The order passed by the Joint Collector is cryptic and therefore, on this ground alone, the order passed by the Joint Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
23. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to the Joint Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Therefore, it is directed that the Joint Collector shall decide the appeal preferred by the appellants afresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to necessary parties. Needless to state that the aforesaid appeal shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the contentions are kept open to be agitated by the parties. 22
24. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
25. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of.
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 18.10.2023 vs