THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1385 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel appears for
the appellants.
Mr. Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel represents
Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents.
Mr. Allam Ramesh, learned counsel appears for learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23962 of 2001.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. Taking into account the fact that the issue involved in this appeal has been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, CJ & NVSK, J 2 W.A.No.1385 of 2008 Mahabubnagar District v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others 1, it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts.
5. There were conflicting views taken by two Division Benches of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others 2 and S. Veera Reddy and another v. Chettapalli Chandraiah and others 3. In view of aforesaid conflicting two Division Bench decisions of this Court, a Full Bench was constituted which answered the reference in Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (supra) para No.58 of which reads as follows:
58. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under:
(1) The law laid down in S. Veera Reddy's case (supra), is not correct having regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act. We agree with the law laid down in B. Ramender Reddy's case (supra), as correct and overrule the decision in S. Veera Reddy's case (supra).
(2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor- in-interest and cannot apply for ORC.
(3) Only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land can apply to get ORC.
(4) The decision in Kodithala Keshavulu's case (supra), does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. For that matter, all the decisions 1 2023(1) ALT 83 (F.B.) 2 1993(2) An. WR 84 (DB) 3 1994 SCC OnLine AP 510 CJ & NVSK, J 3 W.A.No.1385 of 2008 of learned Single Judges and the Division Benches which have taken contrary view stands overruled.
(5) We make it clear that an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant can acquire saleable interest only after they obtain ORC and cannot create third party rights and/or interest in any other person before obtaining ORC.
6. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the reference answered by the Full Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (supra). Therefore, the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23962 of 2001 does not call for any interference.
7. At this stage, it is pointed out that against the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (supra), Special Leave Petition Nos.24214-24215 of 2022 have been preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court in which an interim order has been passed on 05.01.2023. The aforesaid interim order reads as under:
Issue notice.
Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties, in the meantime.
List along with SLP (Civil) No.21809/2022.
CJ & NVSK, J 4 W.A.No.1385 of 2008
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid interim order dated 05.01.2023 operates inter parties and does not apply to the case of the appellants.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2023.
kvni