Telangana High Court

K.G.Krishna Murthy, vs Joint Collector, on 8 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.53 of 2008

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     None appears for either side.

     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

22.10.2007 passed in W.P.No.2385 of 1998 by the learned

Single Judge.

     The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was

preferred by the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order

dated 18.10.1997 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy

District, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, in rejecting the

application of the 1st petitioner/late K.G. Krishna Murthy for

grant of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.                  It

was stated in the writ petition by the petitioners that K.G.

Krishna Murthy filed an application before the Revenue

Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in

respect of land admeasuring Ac.13.05 cents in Sy.No.161 and

Ac.15.30 cents in Sy.No.162 totalling to Ac.28.35 cents in

Antharam Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on

the ground that he was Kabiz-e-Kadim and is in possession of

the land since 1958 i.e., for more than 12 years before the

date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. It was also stated that the
                                           2




said land was an inam land and one Nereti Narsappa was the

original inamdar and on an application filed by Nereti

Narsappa to correct the entries, an order was passed

correcting the entries on 30.04.1963 and the same was

implemented on 21.05.1964. Writ petitioner No.1 purchased

the land from the inamdar on 01.06.1963 and stated that he

was        in   continuous       possession.        The     application   was

submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer.                      It was

stated that though his possession was proved as on

01.11.1973,              however,   his       application     was    rejected

erroneously by the Revenue Divisional officer and the order

was confirmed again erroneously by the Joint Collector.

Reliance was placed by the learned counsel upon a judgment

delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Sayyed Ali vs. A.P.

Wakf Board1.

          The facts of the case further reveal that the property in

the present case relates to a temple and the land attached to

the temple is a service inam land. The inam lands were given

by the erstwhile ruler HEH Nizam in favour of Nereti

Narsappa           for     the   purpose       of   maintenance      of   Sri

Venkateshwara Swamy Temple and also for performing daily

poojas and for feeding pilgrims situated at Chandragiri alias

Dasthagiripet, Hamlet of Anantharam Vilage. The same entry

was made in the revenue record. The facts of the case further

reveal that even in the Kasra Pahani, which is the record of


1
    (1998) 2 SCC 642
                                     3




title, the name of Nereti Narsappa was recorded as poojari.

Meaning thereby, the land was a service inam meant for the

maintenance of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple.                          The

learned Single Judge after scanning the entire evidence

minutely, in paragraphs 8 to 12 has held as under:

     "8.     Petitioner suppressed the real facts with regard to
     filing of suits in the writ petition and a perusal of the record
     goes to show that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of
     1983, on the file of the District Munsif, Tandur for grant of
     injunction against the third respondent in respect of the

said lands asserting that he got the title based on possession and the said suit was dismissed on 28.03.1990. The petitioner also filed another suit in O.S.No.101 of 1982 on the file of the same Court for recovery of damages for cutting the trees and the said suit was also dismissed on 30.04.1985. In the said suit the petitioner admitted that he came into possession of the said lands as leaseholder for two years. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence on record that goes to show that the petitioner was in possession as a tenant 12 years prior to 01.11.1973 the crucial date to consider the grant of occupancy rights.

In fact, the petitioner filed an application for grant of occupancy rights certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer on an earlier occasion and the same was rejected against which an appeal was filed before the Joint Collector and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was confirmed by the Joint Collector on 22.11.1975 in Case No.B6/17237/76 holding that the said lands are service Inam meant for maintenance of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple. The said order has become final and the petitioner never challenged the same.

9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are too technical in contending that the authorities were not having any right to decide the request to grant occupancy rights under the Act in respect of the lands belonging to charitable or religious institutions and therefore, the earlier orders are illegal and unsustainable and cannot operate as resjudicata. It was the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to get the occupancy rights certificate rather than the third respondent under the Act, and the authorities after enquiry under the Act rejected his claim and therefore it cannot be said that the authorities have no right to consider the claim of the petitioner. The arguments of the petitioner cannot stand to any legal scrutiny, as the petitioner himself filed application for grant of occupancy rights claiming himself as Kabiz-e-Kadim and entitled for grant of occupancy rights but he failed to establish that he is Kabiz-e-Kadim. Kabiz-e-Kadim means the holder of Inam land, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than 12

years before the date of vesting and who pays the Inamdar only the land revenue.

10. In the instant case the petitioner utterly failed to establish that he is Kabiz-e-Kadim and there is no evidence to show that he was in continuous possession for 12 years prior to the crucial date of 01.11.973 on the other hand, though the records go to show that name of the petitioner was found as cultivator in the pahanies from 1961-62 to 1982-83 along with the third respondent as cultivator to some extent of land. There is no dispute that in the column pattedar the name of the third respondent was shown as Inamdar. There is no dispute that the name of the petitioner was found in possession column as on 01.11.1973 but the record goes to show that he was only a cultivator but not a Kabiz-e-Kadim. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the authorities rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights certificate. Admittedly, the said land is Mashrutul Khidmat (Service Inam); if that be so, there is a prohibition under the first proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act as amended by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from 26.12.1985, according to which the Inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be to be registered as occupant even in respect of occupant relating to Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants but the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all Inam lands. Further any registration shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration.

11. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the respondents 4 to 7 are not claiming any occupancy rights as admittedly the lands being service inam the Lord Venkateshwara (Deity) alone is the owner and they have no objection for grant of occupancy rights in the name of the deity, as they are entitled only to render service but not to hold the said property as absolute owners.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the orders impugned and the writ petition is devoid of any merit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

The learned Single Judge, as the land was exclusively

given as inam for the maintenance of Sri Venkateshwara

Swamy Temple, has upheld the orders passed by the Revenue

Divisional officer and the Joint Collector. Not only this, the

respondents before the learned Single Judge have also

categorically denied their claim over any of the occupancy

rights on the ground that the lands being service inam, the

Lord Venkateshwara (Deity) alone is the owner and the

occupancy rights can only be granted in the name of the deity

and they are entitled only to render service, but not to hold

the property as absolute owners. The documents on record

establish that the land in question was inam land and the