Telangana High Court
Mamidi Yadi Reddy, vs The Joint Collector, on 28 September, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Amarnath Goud
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 2009, and 1 of 2015 in
Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007
And
Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2012 and 1 of 2021 in
Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008
and
Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 of 2010; 1, 2 and 3 of 2015 in
Writ Appeal (SR).No.47796 of 2010
and
Writ Appeal (SR).No.47796 of 2010
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012 in
Writ Petition No.5525 of 2007
and
Writ Petition No.5525 of 2007
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2011; 1 and 2 of 2015; 1 and 2 of
2021 in Writ Petition No.10127 of 2007
and
Writ Petition No.10127 of 2007
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2015 in Writ Appeal No.1283 of 2009
and
Writ Appeal No.1283 of 2009
Interlocutory Application Nos.3 of 2009; 1, 2 and 3 of 2011 in
Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009
and
Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009
Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2012 in
Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009
and
Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 of 2010; and 3 of 2015 in
Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010
and
Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010
HAC,J & TA,J
::2:: wa_540_2007&batch
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 6 and 7 of 2012; 1 of 2013; 1, 2 and 3
of 2014; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of 2015; 1 and 2 of 2016; 1 of 2017;
1 & 2 of 2018; and 1 of 2019 in
Writ Petition No.408 of 2012
and
Writ Petition No.408 of 2012
Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2012; 1 of 2013 and 1 of 2015
in Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012
and
Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2014 in
Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014
and
Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2014 in
Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014
and
Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014
Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 2 and 5 of 2015 in
Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015
and
Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015
AND
Interlocutory Application Nos.3 of 2015; 1, 2 and 3 of 2016 in
Writ Appeal (SR) No.127899 of 2015
and
Writ Appeal (SR) No.127899 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
The subject matter of this batch of Writ Petitions is the issue
relating to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates under Sections 4
and 5 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for
short, 'the Act') in respect of land admeasuring Acs.11.06 gts., in
Sy.No.366, Acs.16.12 gts., in Sy.No.367 and Acs.11.29 gts., in
Sy.No.368 of Kanojiguda, Hamlet of Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy
District.
HAC,J & TA,J
::3:: wa_540_2007&batch
2. There is a three-pronged contest among:
(a) Khaja Ahmeduddin, S/o. Late Khaja Abdullah, Khaja
Abdul Rahman, S/o. Late Kjaha Abdullah, and Khaja Muneeruddin,
S/o.Khaja Ahmeduddin claiming through one Khaja Meeran who
contend that they are entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under
Section 4 of the Act in the capacity of 'Inamdars' (henceforth referred
to as 'succesors of Inamdars');
(b) Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhoopal Reddy, who
claim Occupancy Rights Certificate alleging that they were 'Kabiz-e-
Kadim' entitled to be issued such Certificate under Section 5 of the
Act or in the alternative as successors-in-interest of the Inamdars after
a purchase from some of the Inamdars (Khaja Mohiuddin and others)
on 15.01.1960. There was also a plea of oral tenancy also raised by
them, but it was not seriously pressed. (henceforth referred to as the
'Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim')
(c) P. Sunanda and others who claim Occupancy Rights
Certificate as successors-in-interest of the Inamdars on the basis of
purchases in a Court auction on 19.10.1987 in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in
O.S.No.76 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-
Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad. (henceforth referred to as the 'auction purchasers')
3. There was also a claim to this property by Kothakapu Sai
Reddy and 3 others contending that they are protected tenants of the
HAC,J & TA,J
::4:: wa_540_2007&batch
said land and entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 7
of the Act, but the same was rejected by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella Division on 24.01.2004.The said order was
confirmed by order dt.09.04.2007 in W.P.No.7093 of 2007, and also
in W.A.No.540 of 2007 by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. So their claim no longer survives for consideration.
A brief overview of the Act
4. The A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was
enacted to abolish all Inams other than Village Service Inams and
Inams held by Religious and Charitable Institutions, for charge of full
assessment for such abolished Inams, for retention by the Inamdar as
well as his tenants of lands under their personal cultivation to the
extent of the maximum allowed under the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and to give adequate
compensation for the lands resumed by them.
5. Only Section 1, Section 2, Section 3(1), Clauses (a), (b), (c) and
(f) of Section 3, and Sections 33 to 37 were brought into force on
20.07.1955 but the rest of the Sections were brought into force on
01.11.1973. The A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules,
1975 were published in the Gazette on 28.06.1975.
6. Immediately after abolition i.e., 20.07.1955, the right, title and
interest of Inamdars vested with the State. However, the persons, who
fit into the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 are entitled to be registered as
HAC,J & TA,J
::5:: wa_540_2007&batch
occupants and the State would grant Occupancy Rights Certificate
upon being satisfied that the concerned person is doing personal
cultivation as on 01.11.1973.
The Background
facts.
7. With this introduction we shall give a brief background of the
facts which resulted in the filing of these Writ petitions before this
Court.
8. In the present case, a Muntakab was issued by a Jagirdar
Maharaja Kishan Prashad of the Nizam Government in Tahsil
No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919) in favour of Khaja Jalal.
A copy of Muntakab is at page Nos.308 to 312 of Volume I-A.
9. It has been specifically mentioned in the Muntakab that it is a
Panmaqta Inam (revenue paying). Khaja Jalal was inducted into
possession in respect of lands covered by Sy.Nos.40, 25/4, 80/1 to
80/5 with an assessment of 276-80 and these lands are covered by old
Sy.Nos.285, 253, 288 and 290 admeasuring Ac.204.22 gts on receipt
of Rs.744/-.
10. Later on, after re-survey, the Sy.No.285 was re-numbered as
Sy.Nos .357 to 372. The subject lands in Sy.No.366,367 and 368 of
Kanojiguda are part of the Inam granted to Khaja Jalal by the
Jagirdar.
HAC,J & TA,J
::6:: wa_540_2007&batch
11. After the death of Khaja Jalal, there were succession
proceedings, whereunder succession was granted in favour of Khaja
Osman, Khaja Hyder, Khaja Meeran vide Orders dt.04.07.1962
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, in an
Appeal against orders of the Deputy Tahsildar, Hyderabad West
dt.25.08.1958 (page No.331 and 331 of Volume I-A).
12. The entries in Khasra Pahani were corrected accordingly.
13. The orders passed by Nizam Atiyat in F.No.855 dt.26.11.1964
would also establish that the schedule lands are Inam Lands belonging
to Khaja Jalal.
14. Mutation was effected in the year 1968 and Faisal Patti was
prepared in the year 1968-69 i.e., Thakta 5-6-7 and Tahsildar fixed the
revenue payable for the Khaja Jalal Maqtha (Inam) in
F.No.A1/4512/68 dt.28.09.1968.
15. The Wasoolbaqui, Sethwar, Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani
would also establish that the land granted to Khaja Jalal was a
Panmaqtha Inam.
16. However, separate proceedings for Occupancy Rights
Certificate were initiated in respect of Sy.No.366 on 25.11.2006 by
Mamidi Yadi Reddy by filing application in Form-I prescribed under
the Act. Successors of Inamdars also filed such application for grant
of Occupancy Rights certificate in December 2006.
HAC,J & TA,J
::7:: wa_540_2007&batch
17. One Kottakpu Sai Reddy claiming to be protected tenant filed
Form-I (statutory format) seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate in
respect of Sy.Nos.367 and 368 in 2002. Upon objections being called
for, the successors of Inamdars on one hand and Mamidi Yadi
Reddy and Samala Bhupal Reddy claimed as Kabizi-Kadim,
P.Sunanda and others claiming to be purchasers in a Court auction
dt.19.10.1987, filed objections opposing the claim.
The successors of Inamdars filed separate Form-I claiming
under Section 4 of the Act in August 2003.
Mamidi Yadi Reddy and Samala Bhupal Reddy filed separate
Form-I claiming under Section 5 of the Act as Kabiz-e-
kadim/purchase from inamdars on 16.3.2002.
18. P.Sunanda and others filed Form-I seeking Occupancy
certificate ofr lands in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda alleging that
they have purchased the land in 1987 in a Court auction in a mortgage
suit, enforced against one K.S.Chetty, who claimed to have purchased
from some of the Inamdars under sale deed on 19.10.1967, and hence
claimed as successors-in-interest of Inamdars.
19. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Sri K.Harshavardan)
granted Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) in favour of the
successors of Inamdars while rejecting the claims of others vide order
dt. 24.01.2004 in proceedings No.L/760/2001 (page Nos.18- 42 of
Volume I-B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::8:: wa_540_2007&batch
20. Appeals were preferred both by Mamidi Yadi Reddy and
Samala Bhupal Reddy and P.Sunanda under Section 24 before the
Joint Collector.
21. The Appellate Authority, Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy,
Sri V.Seshadri, dismissed the Appeals filed against the orders
dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella vide orders
dt.24.02.2007. However, the Joint Collector also set aside the ORC
granted in favour of Inamdars holding that the land in Sy.Nos.367 and
368 are Kancha Lands (grazing lands) and that nobody would be
entitled to Occupancy Rights certificate.
22. Aggrieved by the same, all the above mentioned persons
including Inamdars filed Writ Petitions.
23. Inamdars filed W.P.No.4779 of 2007, which was dismissed at
the stage of admission by the learned Single Judge Justice V.V.S.Rao
vide orders dt.08.03.2007 (page Nos.77 to 82 of Volume I-B).
24. Inamdars filed Review Petition No.134796 of 2007, which
was dismissed by Justice V.V.S.Rao vide orders dt.07.02.2008 since
the delay in filing was not condoned. Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008
is filed against it (page No.120 to 126 of Volume I-C).
25. The Writ Petition No.7093 of 2007 filed by Kottakapu Sai
Reddy was dismissed at the admission stage by learned Single Judge
Justice V.V.S. Rao vide orders dt.09.04.2007 (Page Nos.87 to 91 of
Volume I-B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::9:: wa_540_2007&batch
26. The Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007 filed by Kottakapu Sai
Reddy was also dismissed at the admission stage by Sri Justice
G.S.Singhvi and Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy vide orders
dt.02.07.2007 (page Nos.92 to 108 of Volume I-B).
27. The SLP (C) No.11203 of 2007 filed against it was dismissed at
the admission stage vide orders dt.02.05.2008 (page No.109 of
Volume I-B).
28. P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers) filed
W.P.No.10127 of 2007 challenging order dt.24.02.2007 passed in File
No.F1/5862/2005 of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District
dismissing their appeal under Section 24 of the Act and holding that
they are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate.
29. Similarly, S.Bhupal Reddy filed W.P.No.5525 of 2007
challenging the order dt.24.02.2007 in Case No.F1/7177/2004 passed
by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District setting aside the order
dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.
30. However, W.P.No.16689 of 2008 filed by Mamidi Yadi Reddy
against the same orders was allowed by Sri Justice L.Narasimha
Reddy holding that the nature of land was not an issue before the
Joint Collector, and he remanded the matter to the Joint Collector to
confine the scope of enquiry in respect of entitlement for grant of
Occupancy right Certificate as between the Writ petitioners and
HAC,J & TA,J
::10:: wa_540_2007&batch
respondent Nos.3 to 6 i.e. inamdars vide orders dt.19.03.2009 (page
Nos.110 to 113 of Volume I-B).
31. After remand, the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy,
Dr.M.Jagan Mohan held that the land is Panmaqta Inam Land; that
the lands are not Kancha Lands but agriculture lands; that the word
'Bonthala Kancha' mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55
referring to these lands is the name of the field and not a Kancha Land
as held by his predecessor Joint Collector V.Seshadri. He also
referred to the earlier orders of Joint Collector (V.Seshadri) and held
that that it was rightly held that P.Sunanda and others (auction
purchasers) are not entitled for ORC; and like-wise, Kottakapu Sai
Reddy and others are not entitled for any ORC. Having held so, the
matter was further remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer to
conduct de-novo enquiry with regard to cultivation and possession as
on 01.11.1973 vide proceedings No.F1/2079/2009 dt.05.12.2009
(page Nos.114 to 121 of Volume I-B).
32. Upon remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Sri
B.V.Ratna Kumar, in File No.L/35/2010 dt.28.05.2010 (page
Nos.122 to 134 of Volume No.1-B) having examined the pre and post
abolition records held that the land is Inam Land and taking into
consideration the Sethwar, Wasoolbaqui, Classer Register, Chesala
Pahani allowed the claim of the legal heirs of Khaja Ahmeduddin and
Khaja Abdul Rahman (Successors of Inamdars) and ordered issuance
HAC,J & TA,J
::11:: wa_540_2007&batch
of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. The claims of the
other applicants/implead petitioners were rejected.
33. However, Appeals were filed by Mamidi Yadi Reddy in File
No.F1/1718//2010, Khaja Ishaq and others claiming to be successors
of another branch of Inamdars in File No.F1/3471/2010, M.Malla
Reddy and another in File No.F1/1717/2010, Samala Bhoopal Reddy
in File No.F1/3807/2010 against the orders dt.28.05.2010 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri B.V.Ratna Kumar.
34. The Auction Purchasers, without exhausting the appeal remedy,
straight away filed W.P.No.13096 of 2010 questioning the orders
dt.28.05.2010 of RDO, Sri B.V.Ratna Kumar.
35. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Sri M.Jagannadham,
dismissed all the appeals on 14.12.2011. However, the Joint Collector
observed that the impugned order does not reveal whether the primary
authority examined the nature of the lands and whether the lands are
used as grazing lands or the entire lands were active and personal
cultivation of the grantees of ORC. Therefore, it was further
remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the same with
reference to ground reality. It is also mentioned that the remand is to
the extent of claim of Khaja Ahmeduddin and three others vide File
No.F1/1718/2010 dt.14.12.2011. (page Nos.135 to 167 of Volume I-
B).
HAC,J & TA,J
::12:: wa_540_2007&batch
36. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.408 of 2012 was filed by
Mamidi Yadi Reddy. An interim order was passed in
W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 dt.15.01.2012 as
follows:
"While the proceedings before the RDO shall continue
consequent to the remand orders of the Joint Collector and the
proceedings before the Lower Tribunal may go on but no final
orders shall be passed with regard to grant of ORC". (page
No.168 iof Volume I-B).
37. Though, the remand was in respect of the extent of claim of
Khaja Ahmeduddin and three others, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy, held on 3.3.2014 that Mamidi Yadi Reddy
is entitled for ORC, but however kept the grant of ORC in favour of
Mamidi Yadi Reddy LRs in abeyance in view of the interim orders in
W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 dt.15.01.2012 in
File No.L/601/2012 dt.03.03.2014 (page Nos.185 to 203 of Volume
I-B).
38. Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed a Writ Petition W.P.No.25745 of
2012 seeking a direction to the respondents therein for restoration of
their names in Sy.Nos.367 and 368.
39. Inamdars and others filed Appeals on the file of the Joint
Collector-I, Ranga Reddy contending that the findings recorded by
RDO are beyond the scope of the remand order vide Case
Nos.F1/870, 874, 890, 898 and 1797 of 2014.
HAC,J & TA,J
::13:: wa_540_2007&batch
40. The Joint Collector, Sri Champalal, held on 17.10.2014 that
the appeals before him were pre-mature in view of interim orders
passed in W.P.M.P.No.519 of 2012 in W.P.No.408 of 2012 apart from
observing that the order of RDO itself is pre-mature vide orders
dt.17.10.2014 (page Nos.204 to 235 of VolumeI-B).
41. Aggrieved by the same, Inamdars filed Writ Petition
No.33555 of 2014, S.Bhupal Reddy filed W.P.No.3159 of 2015.
(page Nos.44 to 54 of Volume I-C).
42. Aggrieved by the orders dt.14.12.2011 of Joint Collector, Sri
M. Jagannadham, Sri Samala Bhoopal Reddy preferred Review. The
Joint Collector, vide orders dt.21.01.2012 held that there is no need to
review the matter and observed that he can approach the Revenue
Divisional Officer as the case was remanded to him.
43. Aggrieved by the orders passed in Review dt.21.01.2012 by the
Joint Collector, Sri M.Jagannadham, Inamdars filed W.P.No.33568
of 2014 on the ground that the Joint Collector has no power to review
under the Act.
44. P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers) sought leave to
file Writ Appeal against the judgment in W.P.No.16689 of 2008
dt.19.03.2009 of Justice L.Narasimha Reddy. Leave Petition
No.WAMP No.691 of 2010 in W.A. SR No.47796 of 2010 were
filed.
HAC,J & TA,J
::14:: wa_540_2007&batch
45. One C.V.Mahalaxmi, claiming to be purchaser of 250 sq. yds
from Samala Narsimha Reddy (father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy)
sought leave to file Writ Petition against the judgment in
W.P.No.16689 of 2008 dt.19.03.2009 of Justice L.Narasimha
Reddy. WAMP SR No.2582 of 206 in WA SR No.127899 of 2015
are the applications for grant of leave.
46. P.Sunanda and others filed Leave Petition No.WAMP
No.2326 of 2009 and Review Petition No.WA SR 99886 of 2009 in
W.A.No.540 of 2007.
47. Apart from this, P.Sunanda and others (Auction purchasers)
filed C.M.A.No.1876 of 1999 against the common order
dt.07.06.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in E.A.No.16/1987 (filed by Samala Narasimha Reddy
and Sri Mamidi Yadi Reddy, the alleged purchasers under the oral
agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960) and E.A.No.33/1987 (filed by 52
Godrej Employees, who purchased plots out of the layout in respect of
the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in S.No.368 of Alwal village made by
Samala Narasimha Reddy alleged purchaser under oral agreement of
sale dt.15.01.1960).
48. C.M.A.No.2230 of 1999 against E.A.No.33 of 1987, which
was partly allowed by the executing Court declaring Title in respect of
Sy.No.366, 367 and 368.
HAC,J & TA,J
::15:: wa_540_2007&batch
49. CRP No.300 of 2000 was filed against the common order
dt.07.06.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad dismissing E.A.No.11/1987 (filed by the auction
purchasers for delivery of possession of the land purchased by them in
the Court auction conducted in E.P.No.2/1985 and pursuant to the sale
certificate dt.09.10.1987).
50. Judgment Debtor (K.S.Chetty) filed C.M.A.No.233 of 2000
against E.A.No.16 of 1987 and also filed C.M.A.No.234 of 2000
against E.A.No.33 of 1987.
51. However in this common order we do not propose to deal
with the CMA.No.s 1876 of 1999, 2230 of 1999,300 of 1999, 233 of
2000 and 234 of 2000 and direct that they be disposed off separately
after considering the facts and circumstances in those cases and also
the common orders passed herein.
52. One Mr.Ch.Kondaiah Chowdhary claiming to be GPA-holder
of Auction purchasers filed W.P.No.19551 of 2009 seeking Police
Protection in respect of Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368. The Government
Pleader for Home made a submission that Police are ready to give
protection. Basing on the said submission, Writ Petition was disposed
off at the admission stage, without notice to the unofficial respondents
viz., Mamidi Yadi Reddy, the rival claimant.
53. Aggrieved thereby, Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed Writ Appeal
No.1283 of 2009 and obtained interim suspension.
HAC,J & TA,J
::16:: wa_540_2007&batch
RE: SY.No.366
54. Mamidi Yadi Reddy filed Application Form-I on 25.02.2006
for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella for land in this Sy.No. claiming as
purchaser under Court decree, which was assigned File
No.L/3590/2006.
55. K.Krishna Reddy's claiming to be Protected Tenant filed
objections thereto.
56. Successors of Inamdars also filed Objections and a an
application in Form-I for grant of Occupancy right certificate.
57. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri M.Ravinder Reddy passed
orders dt.25.02.2008 in Proceedings No.L/3590/2006 upholding the
claim of Mamidi Yadi Reddy and rejected the claims of K.Krishna
Reddy and Successors of Inamdars.
58. Aggrieved by the orders dt.25.02.2008 in proceedings
No.L/3590/2006 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, M.Ravinder
Reddy, Successors of Inamdars filed Appeal and the same was against
Case No.F1/2372/2008.
59. The Appeal filed by the Successors of Inamdars was dismissed
by the Joint Collector, M.Jagan Mohan vide orders dt.08.08.2008.
60. However, Auction Purchasers without filing Appeal before the
Joint Collector, straight away filed W.P.No.8764 of 2008, which was
HAC,J & TA,J
::17:: wa_540_2007&batch
dismissed granting liberty to avail remedy of Appeal before the Joint
Collector vide orders dt.16.12.2009.
61. Aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Collector, the successors of
Inamdars filed W.P.No.16349 of 2009.
62. M.Venkata Ratnam and others (Auction Purchasers) filed
W.P.No.10874 of 2009 and is pending.
Events after the hearing commenced in this Court
63. Heard Sri Y.Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the
successors of the Inamdars and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana,
Sr.Counsel, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy for Sriharsha Reddy, Advocate,
Sr.Counsel, Sri P.Ravikiran Rao, Sr.Counsel for Sri Vivek
Jain,Advocate for the Reddy brothers, Smt. A.Anasuya and Sri
Sridhar Pothuraju and Sri J.Prabhakar for the auction purchasers on
14.06.2021, 21.06.2021, 01.07.2021, 06.07.2021, 07.07.2021,
08.07.2021, 13.07.2021, 14.07.2021, 15.07.2021, 28.07.2021,
29.07.2021, 30.07.2021, 04.08.2021, 05.08.2021, 16.08.2021,
17.08.2021, 25.08.2021, 26.08.2021, 07.09.2021, 08.09.2021,
14.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 17.09.2021 and 20.09.2021.
64. On 20.09.2021 these matters were reserved for judgment.
Whether the land is Inam land or patta land or Jagir land?
65. While the persons claiming as Inamdars contend that the lands
in all the three Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda are 'Inam
HAC,J & TA,J
::18:: wa_540_2007&batch
lands', the auction purchasers contend that the land is not 'Inam land'
and is Patta land or Jagir land and so the provisions of the Act do not
apply to it.
66. This is an important jurisdictional fact because if the subject
land is not 'inam land', then the Revenue Divisional Officer to whom
applications were made under the Act for grant of Occupancy
Certificate under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act r/w Section 10 of the Act
would not have jurisdiction to entertain the said applications.
67. So in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India such jurisdictional facts have to be determined in order decide
whether the said Authority correctly exercised jurisdiction in the
matter or not.
68. The auction purchasers, having approached the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella Division for grant of Occupancy Rights
Certificate as successors-in-interest to the Inamdars Khaja Moinuddin
and others (through a sale made obtained by them allegedly on
19.10.1961 to K.S. Chetty and later through a Sale Certificate
obtained by them on 19.10.1987 in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in O.S.No.76 of
1971 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special
Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad),
thereby admitted that these lands are 'Inam lands', and in our opinion,
they are estopped from raising this contention.
HAC,J & TA,J
::19:: wa_540_2007&batch
69. According to the auction purchasers, the land is Jagir land and
the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act is attracted and since the
State Government did not recognize these lands as Inam lands after
the abolition of Jagirs, the Act will not apply to the subject lands. This
plea is based on the proviso to Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act.
70. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act defines the term "Inam" and states:
"2(1)(c). 'inam' means land held under a gift or a grant made by the
Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent
grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or
other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled
with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon
and entered as such in the village records and includes -
(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam, and
(ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered
as inam in the village records :
Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas the expression inam
shall not include such lands as have not been recognized as inams by
Government after the abolition of the Jagirs." ( emphasis supplied)
71. We may point out that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
auction purchasers on 27.07.2002 before the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella by one of the auction purchasers (acting under a
GPA for all the auction purchasers), along with their application
seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate as 'successors of inamdars', no
plea is raised that the subject land is Jagir land.
72. The deponent, on the contrary, stated that K.S. Chetty, from
whom they obtained title had no knowledge about the Inam Abolition
HAC,J & TA,J
::20:: wa_540_2007&batch
Act and could not approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant
of Occupancy Rights Certificate.
73. So without raising such a plea that the subject land is Jagir land
before the Primary Authority, and having voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and having sought an
Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act, it is not open to the
auction purchasers to raise the plea that it is Jagir Land subsequently.
74. Also, admittedly the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella
Division had passed orders in Proceedings No.L/760/2001
dt.24.01.2004 rejecting the claim of the auction purchasers for grant
of Occupancy Rights Certificate on the ground that they were not in
possession on the relevant date of 01.11.1973 and they had claimed to
have come into possession of the land only in 1987. He held that the
Inamdar group claiming through Khaja Meeran is entitled to
Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act.
75. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not
challenged under Section 24 of the Act by the auction purchasers
before the Joint Collector. They directly filed W.P.No.2508 of 2004 in
the Andhra Pradesh High Court and for the first time in that Writ
Petition raised the plea that the subject land is Jagir land.
76. This Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.10.2004 by a learned
Single Judge of this Court observing that they had on their own
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer under
HAC,J & TA,J
::21:: wa_540_2007&batch
Section 10 of the Act by filing objections, that they participated in the
enquiry, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had dismissed their
objections to the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to others and
to grant it to them, by passing an elaborate order, and therefore it is
reasonable to infer that, as an after-thought, they are raising the
question of jurisdiction. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed
them to raise such questions of jurisdiction before the Appellate
Authority under the Act i.e., the Joint Collector by filing Appeal
before him.
77. The auction purchasers then challenged this order of learned
Single Judge by filing W.A.No.1588 of 2004 before a Division Bench
of the said Court, but the said Appeal was also dismissed granting
them leave to prefer Appeal before the Appellate Authority provided
they filed it on or before 14.11.2005.
78. Thereafter, Appeal was filed by the auction purchasers before
the Joint Collector against the order dt.24.01.2004 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.
79. This Appeal along with the Appeals filed against it by the
protected tenants was dismissed on 24.02.2007 by the Joint Collector
without deciding the nature of land i.e., whether it is Jagir land or
Inam land. Strangely he also set aside the Occupancy Rights
Certificate granted in favour of Inamdars holding that the lands in
Sy.Nos.367 and 368 are Kancha lands (grazing lands) and that nobody
would be entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate in view of Clause
HAC,J & TA,J
::22:: wa_540_2007&batch
(a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act which prohibits grant of
such Certificates for grazing lands. He referred to the Khasra Pahani
of 1954-55 which used the words 'Bontala Kancha' under the heading
'Field Name' and also Chesala Pahani which mentioned them to be
'Kancha Lands' and said that the columns in these documents
indicated that the land is not under cultivation, and so it can be safely
concluded that they are used for grazing purposes, and were not under
cultivation in 1955 when the Act was passed.
80. It is not in dispute that challenging the order dt.24.02.2007 of
the Joint Collector:
(a) the Inamdars filed W.P.No.4779 of 2007 which was
dismissed at the admission stage by a learned Single Judge of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court on 08.03.2007. The Inamdars then
filed Review Petition No.134796 of 2007 which was dismissed
on 07.02.2008 on the ground of delay in filing it, which was not
condoned. However, W.A.No.1082 of 2008 filed against it is
pending and is being considered in this batch.
(b) W.P.No.7093 of 2007 filed by the protected tenants was also
dismissed at the admission stage by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court on 09.04.2007, and W.A.No.540 of 2007 filed by the
protected tenants before a Division Bench of the said High Court
was dismissed on 02.07.2007.
HAC,J & TA,J
::23:: wa_540_2007&batch
(c) The auction purchasers filed W.P.No.10127 of 2007 which is
also being considered in this batch.
(d) S. Bhoopal Reddy of the Reddy Brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim
group filed W.P.No.5525 of 2007 which is pending and is also
being considered in this batch.
(e) The other member of the Reddy Brothers group i.e., M. Yadi
Reddy filed W.P.No.16689 of 2008.
81. We may point out that on 19.03.2009, W.P.No.16689 of 2008
was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court holding that the nature and character of land was never in issue
before the Joint Collector in the Appeal under Section 24 of the Act
decided by him on 24.02.2007 against the orders dt.24.01.2004 passed
by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
It was held that the only area of dispute before the Joint
Collector was whether the said M. Yadi Reddy was entitled to grant of
Occupancy Rights Certificate.
The Court held that it appeared that the Joint Collector wanted
to get a reward or a pat from the State Government for procuring such
valuable land and that he had passed the order on 24.02.2007 by
crossing all limits of prudence.
The Court took serious exception to his conduct. It set aside the
order dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector on 19.03.2009 and
remanded the matter back to the Joint Collector for fresh
HAC,J & TA,J
::24:: wa_540_2007&batch
consideration and disposal and confined adjudication only to the rival
claims between the Writ Petitioner and other Appellants on the one
hand and the Inamdars group on the other hand.
82. Having regard to this order dt.19.03.2009 of the High Court in
W.P.No.16689 of 2008, which has attained finality as it has not been
challenged by the State, the question whether the land is 'grazing
land' or not, now becomes irrelevant and the State Government
cannot contend that Occupancy Rights Certificate cannot be given for
this land in view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
83. After remand. the Joint Collector again passed an order on
05.12.2009 in the Appeal No.F1/2079/2009 preferred by the Reddy
brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim to which only the Inamdars group was
party.
He firstly held that M. Yadi Reddy who was the Appellant in
the Appeal Case No.F1/7177/2004 had filed a Petition through his
counsel under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC along with an affidavit stating
that as per legal advice, the appellant had settled the matter out of
Court with the Inamdars group in whose favour the Occupancy Rights
Certificate was directed to be issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, and that he had agreed to withdraw the Appeal. It therefore
dismissed the Appeal No.F1/207/2009 as not pressed as regards the
interest of M. Yadi Reddy.
HAC,J & TA,J
::25:: wa_540_2007&batch
The Joint Collector went into the question of classification of
land in relation to Sy.Nos.367 and 368 i.e., whether it is Inam land or
not and considered important pre- and post abolition revenue records
such as, the Wasool baqui of 1354 Fasli, Sethwar of Alwal Village
and Classer Register of 1355 Fasli and held that the words 'Bapath
Panmaqtha' were used for the said lands indicating that they were
only Inam lands; that the name of the Field for these Sy.Nos. is
recorded as 'Bonthala Kancha'; that the lands are not Kancha lands
but are agricultural lands, that the conclusion of his predecessor that
the land is Kancha is not correct because the records say that the lands
are 'Panmaqtha' lands.
But strangely he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella to conduct a detailed enquiry for ascertaining the nature of
the land with regard to cultivation and also with regard to the question
as to who is in possession thereof on 01.11.1973, the date of vesting.
84. The Revenue Divisional Officer then passed a fresh order on
28.05.2010 after considering all the records referred to above
including the Chesala Pahani.
He then referred to the report of the Bandobasth Department of
the Estate of Raja Saraswathi Pershad (the Jagirdar) dt.1st Behman
1315 Fasli issued in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919) and the
statement therein that the said Raja had granted Muntakab No.1251 in
F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 in the name of Khaja Jalal, that he was
HAC,J & TA,J
::26:: wa_540_2007&batch
inducted into possession of the lands in 1919 and so held that they
are Inam lands.
He also referred to orders passed by the Nazim Atiyat Court in
F.No.855 dt.26.11.1964 that the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 are Inam
lands and they belong to Khaja Jalal; and that it is evident that these
Inam lands are saved under Section 18(1) of the Jagir Abolition
Regulation 1358.
He therefore held that the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate
to the Inamdars group is proper.
85. We have perused the Sethwar of Alwal Village prepared in
1950 in respect of the above Sy.Nos. and observed that it mentions
under Col.3 that the land is 'Panmaqtha' and mentions in Col.4 that
the pattedar was Khaja Jalal Sab.
Even the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 shows in Col.7 the land as
'maqtha' for Sy.Nos.366, 367 and also 368.
The Chesala Pahani of 1955-58 again uses the word 'maqtha'
for Sy.No.368.
86. The term 'maqtha' is interpreted in the Glossary of the Book
'Revenue Laws of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)' by Sri Rajiah, a
renowned expert in Revenue Laws of Telangana as 'land granted to a
person on payment of a fixed amount which is not based on any
percentage of the revenue due on the land'. In other words it is a grant
/ Inam.
HAC,J & TA,J
::27:: wa_540_2007&batch
87. If the contention of the auction purchasers is correct, then the
above referred Revenue Records would have shown the above land as
patta land and not as 'maqtha' land.
88. The counsel for the auction purchasers sought to contend that
there was a grant by a Jagirdar to Khaja Jalal and it is necessary for
such a grant to be recognized as an Inam by the Government after the
abolition of the Jagirs as per Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act
which defines the term 'Inam' and otherwise the property cannot be
treated as 'Inam'.
We may point out that the Preamble to the Act, originally when
it was enacted in 1955, stated 'whereas it is expedient in Public
Interest to provide for the abolition of Inams with certain exceptions
in the Telangana Area of the State of A.P.' and for other matters
connected therewith.
But the words 'with certain exceptions' were deleted through an
Amendment by A.P. Act No.29 of 1985.
Once these words are deleted, in our opinion, it is not possible
for there to be any Inam (even in respect of former Jagir areas as
mentioned in the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act) to survive the
abolition of Inams after 20.07.1955; and the question of any Inam still
surviving as such, because there is no recognition by the Government
after the abolition of Jagirs, does not arise.
HAC,J & TA,J
::28:: wa_540_2007&batch
That was why the Sethwar of 1950 mentioned the land as
Panmaqtha and the Khasra Pahani for 1954-55 also mentioned the
land as Maqtha land.
So the Proviso to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, on which reliance
is placed by the auction purchasers, cannot come to their aid.
Consequently, the plea of their counsel based on Rules
regarding Grant of Pattadari Rights in Non-khalsa Villages framed on
19.05.1947 or the subsequent Circular No.2 dt.18.10.1949 also will
not have any relevance.
Had the plea of the auction purchasers been correct, neither the
Sethwar of 1950 nor the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 would have shown
the land as 'maqtha land' and on the contrary, they would have shown
the land as 'patta land', which is admittedly not the case.
89. Reliance is sought to be placed on an order dt.03.04.1972
passed by the Board of Revenue by Smt. Anasuya, learned counsel for
the auction-purchasers to contend that the land had ceased to be pan
maktha land which they used to be till 1956, but from that year
onwards they are khalsa lands (Government lands).
But we are of the opinion that it is not for the Board of Revenue
to express any opinion about the nature of the land because it has no
jurisdiction under the Act.
Secondly, it had referred to the Report of the Collector,
Hyderabad and a judgment of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad on 12.07.1968
HAC,J & TA,J
::29:: wa_540_2007&batch
while making the above observation, but the Tahsildar's order /
finding is contrary to the Sethwar and Khasra Pahani which both say it
is pan maktha land.
But to the extent the said order of Board of Revenue states that
the said lands are pan maktha lands till 1956, it supports the case of
the Inamdars and the Kabiz-e-kadim groups that the land is 'Inam
Land' as on 20.7.1955, when the Act came into operation.
90. Therefore, we reject the plea of the auction purchasers that the
subject land is Jagir land or Patta land and that the provisions of the
Act are not applicable.
Which of the three groups mentioned above is entitled to grant of Occupancy
Right Certificate ?
91. Section 4 of the Act states as under :
"4. Registration of inamdars as occupants :
(1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be
entitled to be registered as an occupant of allinam lands other than--
(a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands; waste
lands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds and irrigation
works, streams and rivers;
(b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered
under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act;
(c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any
person other than the inamdar; which immediately before the date of
vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any
lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a
half times the 'family holding'.
[Provided that where inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and
religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an
occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the institution alone shall be
entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands
HAC,J & TA,J
::30:: wa_540_2007&batch
other than those specified in clauses (a) and (c) above without restriction
of extent to four and half times the family holding and without the
condition of personal cultivation:
Provided further that where any person other than the concerned
charitable or religious institution has been
registered as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the
commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1985 such registration shall
and shall be deemed always to have been
null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration.]
(2) No inamdar shall be registered as an occupant of any land under
sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount
equal to twenty-five times the difference between the judi or quit-rent, if
any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. The
amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual
instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such
payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land
in respect of which it is payable.
(3) The inamdar shall be entitled to compensation from the
Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam lands in his
possession in excess of the time limit specified in sub-section (1) whether
cultivated or not."
92. Sections 5 to 8 of the Act deal with claims for the Occupancy
rights Certificate by Kabiz-e-Khadim, permanent tenant, protected
tenant and non-protected tenant. Unless this category is entitled to
such certificate, the Inamdar will get it.
93. Therefore, every inamdar shall be entitled to be registered as an
occupant of all inam lands other than lands in respect of which any
person is entitled to be registered under Sections 5 to 8 of the Act
provided, immediately before the date of vesting, such land is in his
personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately
HAC,J & TA,J
::31:: wa_540_2007&batch
owns and cultivates personally are equal to 4 ½ times the 'family
holding'.
What is the relevant date of vesting to determine the entitlement for grant of
Occupancy Rights Certificate?
94. We shall now consider "what is the relevant date of vesting to
determine the entitlement of one or the other of the three groups for
grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of these lands?", and
which one of the competing parties was personally cultivating the land
on such date.
95. To ascertain the former aspect we shall now refer to Clauses (a)
and (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Act which states as
under :
"(3)(a) This Section, Section 2, Section 3 except clauses (d), (g), (h) and
(i) of sub-section (2), Section 33 to 34 (both inclusive), Section 35 to the
extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purposes of the
aforesaid Sections, Section 36 and Section 37, shall come into force on the
date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette;
(b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the
Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this
behalf."
96. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.
Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector,
Hyderabad District and others1 considered the provisions of the Act
including the above provision, Section 3 (which abolishes inams
vesting them in the State) along with Sections 4 to 8 and held that
1993 (2) A.W.R. Pg.84
HAC,J & TA,J
::32:: wa_540_2007&batch
under Section 3, the Inams are abolished and vest in the State
Government w.e.f. 20.07.1955.
It then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra vs. Laxman Ambaji2 and held that though the inams
are abolished, the rights of the inamdar or tenant or Kabiz-e-Kadim
are not extinguished and if they are able to establish personal
cultivation as on 01.11.1973, they would be entitled to occupancy
rights under the Act.
It held that as per the provisions of the Act itself there are two
different dates of vesting and the right to get occupancy rights is not
correlated to the right of vesting of inams in the State. It declared
that the relevant date for purpose of recognizing the occupancy rights
under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act is 01.11.1973.
It held that if on that date either the inamdar or the other
categories mentioned in Sections 4 to 8 are in possession of the land,
they would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. This legal
position is not disputed by counsel for any of the parties.
(A) Whether the Reddy Brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim Group is entitled to grant
of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of the land in Sy.No.366, 367 and
368 of Kanojiguda Village?
97. Firstly, we shall deal with the claim of the Reddy Brothers /
Kabiz-e-Kadim group for grant of occupancy rights for the subject
lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
AIR 1971 SC 1859
HAC,J & TA,J
::33:: wa_540_2007&batch
98. We had earlier mentioned that in the Form-I application filed by
M. Yadireddy on 25.11.2006 for extent of Acs.11.06 gts. in
Sy.No.366 they had claimed occupancy rights as a purchaser under a
Court decree for lands in Sy.No.366, and also as a Kabiz-e-Kadim
paying land revenue to the Government; and in the Form-I application
filed by M. Yadireddy and S. Bhoopal Reddy on 16.03.2002 for
Acs.28.01 gts. in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 they contended that they are
entitled to the Occupancy Rights Certificate as a purchaser under a
sale deed dt.15.01.1960 from Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others and
also that a protected tenant by name K. Sai Reddy had executed a
Ekararnama in their favour on 01.01.1957 and that they were in
possession of the property as on 01.11.1973 as per Revenue Records.
99. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term 'Kabiz-e-Kadim' in the
following terms:
" (e) kabiz-e-kadim' means the holder of inam land, other than
an inamdar, 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 twelve years before the date of
vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue.'
100. Thus to qualify for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under
Section 5 of the Act, the Reddy brothers must fulfill three conditions
i.e., (i) they must be in possession of the land at the time of grant of
inam, or (ii) they have been in continuous possession for not less than
12 years before the date of vesting, and (iii) they should have paid the
inamdar only the land revenue.
HAC,J & TA,J
::34:: wa_540_2007&batch
101. According to the records referred to by the Revenue Divisional
Officer in his order dt.28.05.2010, the grant of inam of land in
Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda happened when such grant was
made by the Estate of Raja Kishan Prasad in favour of Khaja Jalal
through a Muntakab in F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 (1919).
102. It is not the case of the Reddy brothers that they were in
possession of the land in Sy.Nos.367 and 368 on the date of the grant
of the inam. So, the first condition is not fulfilled by them.
103. Since according to Section 1(3)(a) of the Act, Section 2 of the
Act came into force on the date of publication of the Act in the
Gazette i.e. 20.07.1955, the Reddy brothers should have been in
possession for 12 years before the date of vesting i.e. 12 years before
20.07.1955. In other words, they should prove their possession from
1943.
104. Though Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
Reddy brothers sought to contend that the date of vesting is
01.11.1973, we do not agree with the said submission in view of the
clear language in Section 1(3)(a) of the Act.
105. In the Form-I application for grant of Occupancy Right
Certificate made by them on 16.03.2002 in respect of the land in
Sy.Nos.367 and 368, at Column 2(b), they pleaded that they were in
possession since more than 50 years. This takes their alleged
possession to only 1952.
HAC,J & TA,J
::35:: wa_540_2007&batch
In the objection petition filed by them to the application in
Form-I made by the alleged protected tenant K.Sai Reddy, they stated
that they were in possession of this land since 1950 onwards.
Either way, they do not fulfill the condition of being in
possession from 1943.
Lastly, they pleaded in Column 2(b) of Form-I application filed
on 16.03.2002 for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate that they were
paying land revenue to the Government.
But as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the person claiming the
status of a Kabiz-e-kadim should have paid land revenue to the
inamdar only and not to the Government.
Therefore even this third condition is not fulfilled by them.
106. As regards the alternate case set up by the Reddy brothers
group about purchase of the land on 15.01.1960 from Khaja
Mohiuddin and 21 others is concerned, it is to be seen that Samala
Narasimha Reddy, who is the father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy and
Mamidi Raji Reddy, father of Mamidi Yadi Reddy had filed
O.S.No.65 of 1962 before the Munsif Magistrate, Taluk West,
Hyderabad District against Khaja Mohiuddin and 21 others to pass a
decree for cancellation of the existing proprietor's names from the
Register of Record of Rights pertaining to the suit lands and to order
entry of their names as proprietors in its place.
HAC,J & TA,J
::36:: wa_540_2007&batch
107. In that suit, they merely mentioned that Khaja Mohiuddin,
Khaja Mulla, Khaja Hyder and Khaja Bawa are pattedars of land in
Sy.Nos.366 to 368, that defendant Nos.1 to 22 are absolute owners
and persons in possession and they have agreed to sell away the lands
and have put the plaintiffs in possession over the lands as owners on
15.01.1960; that they are in possession for the past 16 years for
grazing of their animals under leases till 14.01.1960; and ever since
15.01.1960, they are in possession over the suit lands as absolute
owners and exclusive proprietors.
So in this suit, the pleading is only of an agreement of sale
(and not one of a sale deed dt.15.01.1960) for the lands in favour of
Reddy brothers' fathers. Even the said agreement of sale
dt.15.01.1960 was not filed by them.
108. Curiously, the said suit was filed on 10.09.1962, a written
statement was filed by defendant Nos.1 to 22 on 14.09.1962 admitting
their claim and stating that only Khaja Mohiuddin is surviving as
pattedar and the other defendants are heirs of Khaja Abdullah, Khaja
Hyder and Khaja Bawa, who had died, and on that very day, i.e.
14.09.1962, the suit came to be decreed on the basis of admission of
the defendants that contents of the plaint are correct and that they
could not achieve getting revenue sanction for transfer of these lands
in favour of the plaintiffs due to their internal rivalries.
109. The decree dt.14.9.1962 in O.S.No.65 of 1962 before the
Munsif Magistrate, Taluk West, Hyderabad District appears to be a
HAC,J & TA,J
::37:: wa_540_2007&batch
collusive decree in the above circumstances for in the short period of
4 days it is not possible for even suit summons to be served normally.
110. In Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh3,
The Supreme Court held that if a decree is obtained by fraud or
collusion it does not operate as res judicata and it is not even
necessary to challenge it by way of an independent suit. In a
subsequent proceeding or suit this plea can be raised to get over such
a judgment obtained by collision. It held:
"6. It appears from the commentary in Sarkar's Evidence Act (13th
Edn., Reprint, at p. 509) on Section 44 that it is the view of the
Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna and Bombay High Courts that before such
a contention is raised in the latter suit or proceeding, it is not necessary
to file an independent suit. The passage from Sarkar's Evidence which
refers to various decisions reads as follows:
"Under Section 44 a party can, in a collateral proceeding in
which fraud may be set up as a defence, show that a decree or
order obtained by the opposite party against him was passed by
a court without jurisdiction or was obtained by fraud or
collusion and it is not necessary to bring an independent suit for
setting it aside (Bansi Lal v. Dhapo2, Rajib Panda v. Lekhan
Sendh Mahapatra3, Parbati v. Gajraj Singh4, Prayag Kumari
Debi v. Siva Prosad Singh5, Hare Krishna Sen v. Umesh
Chandra Dutt6, Aswini Kumar Samaddar v. Banamali
Chakrabarty7, Manchharam v. Kalidas8, Rangnath Sakharam v.
Govind Narasinv9, Jamiraddin v. Khadejanessa Bibi10,
Bhagwandas Narandas v. D.D. Patel & Co.11, Bishunath Tewari
v. Mirchi12 and Gurajada Vijaya Lakshmamma v. Yarlagadda
Padmanabham13)."
Thus, in order to contend in a later suit or proceeding that an earlier
judgment was obtained by collusion, it is not necessary to file an
(2000) 7 SCC 543
HAC,J & TA,J
::38:: wa_540_2007&batch
independent suit as stated in Jagar Ram case1 for a declaration as to
its collusive nature or for setting it aside, as a condition precedent. In
our opinion, the above cases cited in Sarkar's Commentary are
correctly decided. We do not agree with the decision of the Full Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagar Ram case1. The Full
Bench has not referred to Section 44 of the Evidence Act or to any other
precedents of other courts or to any basic legal principle.
7. The law in England also appears to be the same, that no independent
suit is necessary. In Spencer-Bower and Turner on Res Judicata (2nd
Edn., 1969) it is stated (para 359) that there are exceptions to the
principle of res judicata. ..."
111. So no rights can be claimed by them under such a collusive
judgment.
112. That apart, the said decree is neither a decree of declaration of
title of the Reddy brothers to the said land nor one for specific
performance of an agreement of sale. Since the pleading in the suit
was only of an agreement to sale, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, it does not of itself create any interest in the said
property as held in Suraj Lamps and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State
of Haryana4 :
"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of
sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence
of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by
law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be
transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered
deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements
of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor
transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited
(2012) 1 S.C.C. 656
HAC,J & TA,J
::39:: wa_540_2007&batch
right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP
Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without
possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that
sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered
instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or
charge on its subject-matter."
113. We may also point out that under Section 47 of the A.P. (T.A.)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, no permanent alienation
and no other transfer of agricultural land would be valid unless it has
been made with the previous sanction of the Collector.
114. In N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and others5, the Supreme Court held in
para no.47 that in view of the express prohibition for transfer or
alienation of agricultural land contained in Section 47 of the A.P.
(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, there cannot be any
transfer of saleable interest in the land at all if sanction of the
Collector was not obtained prior to such transfer or alienation; and
the transaction without such sanction of Collector is not a mere
voidable transaction. It held that the scheme of the said Act is
reflected in Section 30 thereof which prohibits sub-division or sub-
letting of any land by a tenant or assignment of any interest held by
him therein; that even the preamble to the Act provides that it was
expedient inter alia to amend the law regulating the relations of
landlords and tenants of agricultural lands and alienation of such lands
(2006) 4 S.C.C. 214
HAC,J & TA,J
::40:: wa_540_2007&batch
and to enable the land holders to prevent excessive sub-division of
agricultural holdings.
115. Therefore, in the absence of prior sanction from the Collector
under Section 47 of the said Act for the transfer of the land in
Sy.Nos.366 to 368 of Kanojiguda, Hamlet of Alwal Village, Ranga
Reddy District, the alleged transfer thereof to Samala Narasimha
Reddy and Mamidi Raji Reddy has no effect, and the title continues to
be with the family of the inamdars consisting of Kaja Mohiuddin and
others.
116. Also, under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in
Land Regulation 1358 Fasli, there is a bar in filing of civil suits
against the Government or any Officer of Government in respect of a
claim to have an entry made in any record or register maintained
under the said Regulation or to have any such entry omitted or
amended.
The prayer in O.S.No.65 of 1962 is essentially for amendment
of the register of Record of Right in relation to the above lands and
attracts the provisions of the said Regulation.
But to get over the bar under Section 14 of said the Regulation,
without impleading any Officer of the Government or the State
Government, the said suit appears to have been filed. This conduct of
the Reddy brothers' fathers cannot be appreciated and they cannot be
permitted to circumvent the provisions of the regulation in this way
HAC,J & TA,J
::41:: wa_540_2007&batch
and get the Record of rights amended without impleading any official
of the Revenue Department of the State Government.
117. Worse still, on 06.10.1962, the Office of the Munsif Court,
Hyderabad West in an E.P.No.34 of 1962 filed by Samala Narasimha
Reddy, strangely wrote a letter to the Collector, Hyderabad District
enclosing a certified copy of the decree dt.14.09.1962 in O.S.No.65 of
1962 requesting the latter to take necessary action in the matter.
118. Nothing was done on this letter till the year 1980 but in that
year, in F.No.B1/3857/80, a Faisal Patti was prepared for 1979-80
recording the name of Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji
Reddy in the Record of Rights on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.65
of 1962 with retrospective effect.
In fact the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in his
order proceedings No.L/35/2010 dt.28.05.2010 recorded a finding that
the record reveals that entries in pahanis were made pursuant to orders
passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.65 of 1962 and implemented in
1980 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri by correcting the
Revenue Records with retrospective effect; and that such entries were
made by the said official without looking into the facts and verifying
the physical possession of the lands on ground.
This categorically shows that dubious methods were employed
by Reddy brothers to secure the said decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962, and
HAC,J & TA,J
::42:: wa_540_2007&batch
then to get their names incorporated in the Record of Rights and other
revenue records.
Therefore, though pahanis for 1973-74 filed by them show their
names as persons in possession for Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of
Kanojiguda, such entries are obviously the effect of the order passed
in 1980 on the basis of the decree dubiously obtained in O.S.No.65 of
1962 and no credence can be given to such an entry obtained by such
means.
The Pahanis must be presumed to retain the original entries
showing the Inamdar's successors showing their possession prior
to 1980 including as on 1.11.1973.
119. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Reddy brothers /
Kabiz-e-Kadim are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right
Certificate either in that capacity or as successors-in-interest of the
inamdars under the agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960.
120. Admittedly, in regard to Sy.Nos.367 and 368, the claim of
Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate was rejected
initially by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in proceedings
No.L/760/2001 dt.24.01.2004 and also by the Joint Collector on
24.02.2007; again when the order dt.24.02.2007 of the Joint Collector
was set aside by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 19.03.2009 in
W.P.No.16689 of 2008, and the matter was remitted back to the Joint
Collector, he once again remanded it to the Revenue Divisional
HAC,J & TA,J
::43:: wa_540_2007&batch
Officer, Chevella; and the said Revenue Divisional Officer on
28.05.2010 once more rejected their claim.
121. Having regard to the finding recorded by us above that the
Reddy brothers are not entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificate under
the Act, we uphold the above orders.
122. But we may point out that in regard to the land in Sy.No.366 of
Kanojiguda, Mamidi Yadireddy filed application in Form-I on
25.02.2006 for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate before the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella claiming to be purchaser under
an unregistered sale in 1952 and also under a Court decree in
O.S.No.65 of 1962 on file of the District Munsif, West and South,
Ranga Reddy District.
123. He also filed a petition on 14.11.2007 before the said authority
contending that the land of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 had structures
in it and they vested in him under Section 9 of the A.P. (Telangana
Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
124. One K. Krishna Reddy claiming to be protected tenant filed
objections thereto. The successors of the inamdars also filed
objections.
125. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 25.02.2008 in
Proceedings No.L/3590/2006 upholding the claim of Mamidi
Yadireddy and rejecting the claims of K. Krishna Reddy and
Inamdars.
HAC,J & TA,J
::44:: wa_540_2007&batch
126. This was challenged by the successors of Inamdars before the
Joint Collector in Case No.F1/2372/2008, but he dismissed the appeal
on 08.08.2008. The successors of inamdars filed W.P.No.16349 of
2009, and the auction purchasers filed W.P.No.10874 of 2009.
127. In the order dt.25.02.2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer he
held that the successors of the inamdars were not in possession of the
land as on 01.11.1973 as per the Pahani of 1973-74, and so they were
not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate. He rejected the
claim of protected tenants also, but held that Mamidi Yadireddy's
father Mamidi Rajireddy and Samala Narasimha Reddy having
purchased under unregistered sale of 1952, and as per the decree
dt.14.09.1962 in O.S.No.65 of 1962, and since the name of Sri
Mamidi Rajireddy was found in the Pahani for 1973-74, he is entitled
to Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act. He did not consider
the plea of Mamidi Yadireddy under Section 9 of the Act.
128. The Joint Collector, in his order dt.08.08.2008 held that there
were no structures in existence as per the Pahani of 1973-74 and so
the claim under Section 9 of the Act made by Mamidi Yadireddy
cannot be accepted, but in view of the purchase under the unregistered
sale in 1952 and also the decree on 14.09.1962, he is entitled to
Occupancy Right Certificate and not the inamdars.
129. The reasoning of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint
Collector in accepting the claim of Mamidi Yadireddy on the basis of
HAC,J & TA,J
::45:: wa_540_2007&batch
the decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962 cannot be accepted and has already
been rejected by us as mentioned above.
130. Having pleaded that there was an Agreement of Sale on
15.01.1960 in O.S.No.65 of 1962, strangely a new plea about
purchase of the land under unregistered sale of 1952 was raised before
the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector by Mamidi
Yadireddy for the first time.
131. Therefore, in our opinion, even with regard to the land in
Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda, the Reddy brothers are not entitled to claim
Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act, and the orders obtained by
them from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in Proceedings
No.L/3590/2006 on 25.02.2008 and from the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District on 08.08.2008, are set aside.
132. This concludes the discussion with regard to the claim of the
Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group and we hold that they are not
entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of lands in
Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
(B) Whether the auction purchasers are entitled to grant of Occupancy
Right Certificate in respect of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of
Kanojiguda?
133. We shall now consider whether the auction purchasers group
are entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of land
in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
HAC,J & TA,J
::46:: wa_540_2007&batch
134. One group of auction purchasers is represented by Ms.
Anasuya, Advocate, and another group is represented by Sri P.
Sridhar, Advocate.
135. P. Sunanda and 13 others filed application in Form-I for grant
of Occupancy Right Certificate on 20.07.2002.
136. In brief, their case is that one K.S. Chetty purchased Acs.67.12
gts. in Sy.Nos.365 to 370 of Kanojiguda under a registered sale deed
dt.19.10.1967 from Khaja Moinuddin and others; that he approached
the revenue authorities for mutation in his name and also made an
application to the Tahsildar, Hyderabad (West) for validation of his
sale by giving a certificate under Section 50-B of the A.P. (T.A.)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
They alleged that even though actual physical possession of the
land was delivered to him, it was not entered in the Revenue Records
because the permission under Section 50-B of the Act was not given
to him by the then Tahsildar; on 29.04.1972, the Tahsildar, Hyderabad
(West) rejected his application on some technical grounds as ceiling
certificate was not enclosed to his application; as Sections 47 and 48
of the said Act were repealed later on, the application was not
submitted by K.S. Chetty with the relevant enclosures; but pursuant to
the sale deed he enjoyed physical possession of the said property.
137. They alleged that K.S. Chetty mortgaged this property to M/s.
Desai and Company, Secunderabad; and as he failed to repay the loan,
HAC,J & TA,J
::47:: wa_540_2007&batch
M/s. Desai and Company filed O.S.No.76 of 1971 before the
Additional Chief Judge - cum - Special Chief Judge for ACB cases,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad; the said suit was decreed and the above
property was put to sale through public auction; and the said auction
was held in E.P.No.2 of 1985 in O.S.No.76 of 1971 on 18.09.1987
and the lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 were thus transferred to
them after they became the highest bidders and after obtaining the sale
certificate on 19.10.1987.
They alleged that possession of the property was also
delivered to the auction purchasers through Court Bailiff on
20.11.1987.
According to them, K.S Chetty died on 15.03.1999 and during
his lifetime he had no knowledge about the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and so could not approach the Revenue
Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate even
though he was in continuous possession from 19.10.1967.
They contended that they are entitled to grant of Occupancy
Right Certificate as successors-in-interest of inamdars who had sold to
K.S. Chetty from whom they acquired title in the Court auction.
138. Firstly, a reading of the sale deed dt.19.10.1967 executed by the
inamdars /defendant Nos.2, 12 to 14 and 17 in O.S.No.65 of 1962 in
favour of K.S.Chetty shows at page 2 that 'the vendors have agreed to
deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the schedule land to the
HAC,J & TA,J
::48:: wa_540_2007&batch
vendee'. Therefore as per the recitals in the said sale deed no
possession was delivered by the vendors to K.S.Chetty at all. How he
got possession subsequently and in what manner is not explained by
the auction-purchasers.
139. Secondly, it is not in dispute that there was no prior sanction of
the Collector for the transfer of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.366,
367 and 368 of Kanojiguda on 19.10.1967 by the inamdars in favour
of K.S.Chetty as mandated by Section 47(1) of the A.P. (Telangana
Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Therefore as per
the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Srinivasa Rao (4 supra), K.S.
Chetty did not get any saleable interest in the said land in the said
survey numbers.
140. After Section 50-B was introduced into the said Act by Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act VI of 1964) and its further amendment
by Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Third Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act XII of 1969) w.e.f. 18.03.1969
(Section 47 was omitted by the said Amending Act XII of 1969), it
stated in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) thereof that where any
alienation or other transfer of agricultural land took place on or after
coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1961, but before the date of commencement of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Third Amendment) Act, 1969 (i.e. between 21.02.1961 and
HAC,J & TA,J
::49:: wa_540_2007&batch
18.03.1969) and where possession of such land was given to the
alienee or transferee before such commencement and such alienation
or transfer is not inconsistent with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, the alienee or transferee
may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Tahsildar
for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
141. In the instant case, K.S. Chetty admittedly made such
application under Section 50-B of the said Act, but it was rejected by
the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West on 03.03.1970. He then filed an appeal
in the Court of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The District Revenue
Officer of Hyderabad, after hearing the appeal passed orders in
F.No.E4/20240/70 dt.29.12.1970 and remanded the case again to the
Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk.
142. Even after remand, the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West dismissed
the said application vide Case No.A4/322/1972 on 29.04.1972 holding
that his application did not come within the purview of Section 50-B
for which possession and sale consideration and ceiling certificate are
essential as a basic record, and they were not filed and K.S. Chetty did
not attend the hearing.
143. The learned counsel for the auction-purchasers seeks to rely
upon Section 26 of the A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1961 and urges that the said Act will override the provisions of the
A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in
so far as they relate to any matter or proceeding dealt with in the
HAC,J & TA,J
::50:: wa_540_2007&batch
former Act, and such provisions of the latter Act shall cease to have
effect. She contends that since one of the reasons for rejection of the
Section 50-B application was non-filing of certificate by K.S. Chetty
that the land for which such certificate was sought was within the
ceiling limits prescribed in the A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1961, even if such certificate is not issued to K.S. Chetty it will
not in any way deprive him of title to the above land conveyed by the
inamdars.
144. We do not agree with the said submission because the rejection
of the application for issuance of certificate under Section 50-B of the
Act by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk was not only the non-
filing of the ceiling certificate but also because there were doubts
about his possession and absence of proof of sale consideration.
145. Admittedly, the said order dt.29.04.1972 of the Tahsildar,
Hyderabad West Taluk rejecting grant of certificate under Section
50-B of the Act to him was never challenged by K.S.Chetty and the
said order attained finality.
146. It is not open to the auction-purchasers claiming through him to
collaterally attack the said order and seek to water-down its effect.
They stepped into the shoes of K.S. Chetty and the adverse orders
against him would bind them.
147. In fact, the plea on the basis of Section 26 of the A.P. Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 had not been raised in the Form-I
HAC,J & TA,J
::51:: wa_540_2007&batch
application made by the auction-purchasers before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and was admittedly not argued
at any point of time before any Authority and is being raised for the
first time in this batch of Writ Petitions. This cannot be permitted.
148. Thirdly, the crucial date for determination of grant of
Occupancy Right Certificate is 01.11.1973.
It is the admitted case of the auction-purchasers that they
purchased the lands in Court auction through a sale certificate
dt.19.10.1987 and they are in possession since 1987.
As on 01.11.1973, admittedly they were not in possession of
these lands.
On this ground also their claim cannot succeed, particularly,
when there is no evidence filed to show that K.S. Chetty was in fact in
actual physical possession of this land as per Revenue Record such as
Pahanis as on 01.11.1973 or at any time prior thereto or subsequent
thereto before 1987.
149. Fourthly, Section 3(2)(f) of the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 categorically states that no inam land
shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or
other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of
vesting or any order of attachment passed before such date in respect
of such inams, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the
HAC,J & TA,J
::52:: wa_540_2007&batch
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cease to be in force. This provision
had come into force on 20.07.1955 itself.
150. In view of this, there could not have been any sale by way of
public auction in 1987 in the civil suit O.S.No.76 of 1971 filed by
M/s.Desai & Company against K.S. Chetty by the Additional Chief
Judge - cum - Special Chief Judge for ACB cases, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. Consequently, the said sale in favour of the auction-
purchasers is not valid.
151. A new plea was taken in W.P.No.10874 of 2009 by some of the
auction-purchasers that the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975
was enacted, that a Master Plan was prepared under it and the subject
land falls in Residential Zone; that it was converted into non-
agricultural land through a notification given under Section 13 of the
said Act and so the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955 would not apply.
152. No such notification has been filed in this Court or before the
primary or appellate authorities under the Act by the auction-
purchasers and no such plea that the land was residential zone land
was canvassed before them.
153. In fact, the pahani of 1973-74 shows that the subject land is
agricultural land and in Column No.16 mentions 'actual cultivator'.
Had the land been converted into residential zone, there would have
HAC,J & TA,J
::53:: wa_540_2007&batch
been no pahani prepared for it at all. It is not open to the auction-
purchasers to make such a claim at this stage.
154. It is also the plea of the auction purchasers that while only 6
inamdars had executed the sale deed on 19.10.1967 in favour of
K.S.Chetty, 10 more inamdars executed a release deed on 29.04.1968
also in his favour de-hors the decree in O.S.No.76 of 1971.
155. But even this document, having been executed without prior
sanction of Collector under Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 or certificate under Section 50-B of the
said Act by the Tahsildar cannot convey any title to K.S.Chetty.
156. Therefore the plea of the auction purchaser that the inamdars,
having divested themselves of title to the subject land by executing
the sale deed dt.19.10.1967 or the release deed dt.29.04.1968, cannot
make any claim for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate, is
untenable.
157. Therefore we hold that the auction purchasers also are not
entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under the Act for
lands in Sy.No.366,367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
158. Though several submissions were made by all parties on the
meaning of the term 'successors-in-interest' of inamdars occurring in
the definition of the term 'inamdar' occurring in Section 2(d) of the
Act and as to whether the said term applies only to legal heirs of
inamdars or also to purchasers/alienees from inamdars between
HAC,J & TA,J
::54:: wa_540_2007&batch
20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973, we do not propose to go into the said
question because both the Reddy Brothers Group and the auction-
purchasers group, who raised such a plea, have been held by us to be
disentitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate on other grounds.
Whether the Inamdars Group is entitled to grant of Occupancy Right
Certificate?
159. Normally, once the claims of the Kabiz-e-Kadim / Reddy
Brothers Group and the auction purchasers group are rejected, the
inamdars ought to be entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate
in view of the language contained in sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of
the Act.
160. The said provision of law states that the Inamdar would be
entitled to it other than for lands in respect of which Kabiz-e-Kadim,
protected tenant, permanent tenant, non-protected tenant is entitled to
be registered as occupant. Thus it implies that if there are no other
eligible persons falling under Sections 5 to 8 of the Act, the inamdars
ought to be given the Occupancy Right Certificate.
161. But serious objections have been raised by the Reddy Brothers
group and the auction purchasers group as to the claims made by the
persons Khaja Naseeruddin, s/o. Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja
Muneeruddin, s/o.Khaja Ahmaduddin and Khaja Ahmaduddin,
s/o.late Khaja Abdullah and Khaja Abdul Rehman, s/o.late Khaja
Abdullah and it is contended that they are not related to the inamdar
Khaja Jalal.
HAC,J & TA,J
::55:: wa_540_2007&batch
162. It is contended that the claim in respect of the land in
Sy.Nos.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda was made by G.P.A. Holders of
Inamdars by name Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin, that
there is no family tree filed showing the relationship of these persons
with Khaja Jalal, the original grantee from the Jagirdar Maharaja
Kishan Prashad under the muntakab in F.No.3/11 of Fasli 1329 (1919)
and so they ought not to be granted the Occupancy Right Certificate.
163. The above 4 individuals had opposed the claim for Occupancy
Right Certificate made by the protected tenant K.Sai Reddy and the
Reddy Brothers i.e. Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Yadi
Reddy, while claiming such certificate for themselves under Section 4
of the Act.
164. This aspect had been considered at length in the initial
order in proceedings No.L/760/2001 dt.24.01.2004 by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella.
The following are the findings in the said order:
(i) There is no dispute that the original grantee was Khaja Jalal.
In column 8 of the Khasra Pahani dealing with 'name of
pattadar/inamdar', the name of Khaja Jalal is mentioned for
Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
(ii) It is also not in dispute that in the Chesala Pahani of 1955 to
1958, in column No.11, the name of Khaja Mohiuddin is recorded as
Makthadar and the names of Khaja Abdullah, Khaja Hyder and Khaja
HAC,J & TA,J
::56:: wa_540_2007&batch
Bawa are mentioned as 'Hissedars' (sharers). It is mentioned that
each of them has 0-4-0 share.
(iii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella held that in the
share of Khaja Abdullah, his brother Khaja Meeran was a half share
holder; that in File No.3/11/1329 Fasli (1919), Muntakab bearing
No.1251 was issued according to which 'Mash' (i.e. Maqtha Jalal)
was issued in favour of (i) Khaja Osman, (ii) Khaja Meeran
(succeeded by his wife Banu Bee), Khaja Ali (succeeded by his son
Khaja Abdullah), Khaja Shareef and Bawa Sahed Asghar Ali;
consequent on the death of Khaja Meeran, succession was sanctioned
in respect of his share in favour of his daughters Smt.Azeez Bee to the
extent of 2/3rd share and 1/3rd share in favour of his wife Smt.Banu
Bee for her lifetime and remaining would devolve on Khaja Abdullah
and his brother; this was informed by the Assistant Nazim Atiyat vide
his letter No.855 dt.26.11.1964 and a copy of the succession statement
was also sent to the Collector, Hyderabad District.
(iv) The Revenue Divisional Officer also stated that in 1957, a
dispute arose between the legal heirs of late Khaja Meeran and Khaja
Moinuddin and others regarding correction of names and fixation of
shares relating to the said land in the Khasra Pahani; on 22.08.1957,
Smt.Azeez Bee, Smt.Banu Bee and Abdur Rehman applied for
correction of entries in the Khasra Pahani; it was decided by the Naib
Tahsildar / Deputy Tahsildar after taking evidence; and corrections
were made in orders passed on 28.05.1958 in F.No.40/86/57. It is
HAC,J & TA,J
::57:: wa_540_2007&batch
stated that the shares were fixed in respect of 1/3rd share enjoyed by
Khaja Meeran as follows:
"(a) Shri Khaja Osman S/o.Khaja Abdulla,
a) Original share 0-2-8
(b) Shri Khaja Ahmaduddin, b) Share acquired 0-0-7
-------
(c) Shri Khaja Abdur Rahman Total : 0-0-3
(d) Shri Khaja Yousuf -------
1) Smt.Babu Bee, W/o.Shri Khaja Meeran 0-0-4
(a) Smt.Vazeer Bee, D/o.Shri Khaja
(b) Smt.Azeez Bee, Meeran 0-1-9
-------
Total : 0-5-4
(v) Subsequently, the order records that Smt.Vazeer Bee died and
her son Abdur Rehman submitted a petition on 30.05.1959 before the
Additional Collector, Hyderabad District for recording his name in
place of his deceased mother and the said claim was allowed vide
proceedings No.RDO.A/9677/58.
(vi) This was challenged by Smt.Banu Bee and Azeez Bee, wife and
daughter of Khaja Meeran and Abdul Rehman before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West in F.No.A5/4342/58 under the
A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulations 1358 Fasli.
Khaja Moinuddin, Khaja Osman, Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdur
Rehman, Khaja Yousuf (son of Khaja Abdullah), Khaja Hyder and
Khaja Bawa were made defendants. The appellants sought removal of
the names of the respondents from the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and
to include their names.
(vii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West passed orders
on 04.07.1962 holding that in the disputed lands, Khaja Meeran had
HAC,J & TA,J
::58:: wa_540_2007&batch
0-5-4 share as per the decision of the Board of Revenue No.57/1354
in F.No.107/87 dt.22nd Mahar 1354 Fasli (1944) and that in the
Muntakab of 'Daftar Peshi Sri Kishan Pershad Bahadur'
No.362/1329 dt.21st Ardibeshth 1329 Fasli, Khaja Meeran was also
registered as shareholder along with Khaja Sharif, Khaja Bawa, Khaja
Osman and Khaja Hyder; that Khaja Bawa had been assigned specific
lands; and so the main shareholders remained in the property are Shri
Khaja Osman, S/o.Shri Khaja Ghouse, Shri Khaja Hyder and Shri
Khaja Meeran, and they have 0-5-4 share.
(viii) It was further held that the heirs of Khaja Meeran are Khaja
Abdullah (brother), Smt.Banu Bee (wife), Smt.Azeez Bee and
Smt.Vazeer Bee (daughters); that Abdur Rehman would get the share
of Smt.Vazeer Bee, his mother, on her death; and thus as per the
decision of the Board of Revenue, Khaja Abdullah will get 0-2-8 and
0-0-7 share as brother of Khaja Meeran, Smt.Azeez Bee would get
0-0-10½ share, Abdur Rehman would get 0-0-10½ share and
Smt.Banu Bee would get 0-0-4 share and that the Khasra Pahanis
were corrected as above.
(ix) It was further observed that the entire landed property remained
joint with symbolic shares and single unit legal heirs concerning such
joint property cannot execute any sort of transactions independently.
(x) It was held that therefore Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdul
Rehman, Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin are successors
HAC,J & TA,J
::59:: wa_540_2007&batch
of inamdars and they are entitled to Occupancy Rights Certificates
since others are not entitled to the same.
165. To sum up, according to this order dt.24.01.2004 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, though the grant was to Khaja
Jalal sometime in 1919, as per the order dt.04.07.1962 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West, late Khaja Meeran had a share
0-5-4 in the lands, and Khaja Abdullah got 0-2-8 and 0-0-7 being the
brother of Khaja Meeran.
166. Khaja Ahmeduddin and Khaja Abdul Rehman are the sons of
Khaja Abdullah. Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin are the
sons of Khaja Ahmeduddin. These are the applicants for grant of
Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Act in respect of
lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
167. In the instant case, the Form-I application filed for grant of
Occupancy Right Certificate in regard to land in Sy.No.366 of
Kanojiguda was signed by Khaja Ahmeduddin, Khaja Naseeruddin
and Khaja Muneeruddin and though Abdul Rehman did not sign the
Form-I, he did sign the affidavit enclosed to the said Form-I in
December, 2006.
168. The Form-I application filed for grant of Occupancy Right
Certificate in regard to land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda was
signed by Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin, both of whom
are sons of Khaja Ahmeduddin (as G.P.A. Holders of Khaja
HAC,J & TA,J
::60:: wa_540_2007&batch
Ahmeduddin) and Khaja Abdul Rehman, son of late Khaja Abdullah.
Thus the father had authorised his sons to represent him.
169. In our opinion, this order dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella exhaustively considers the lineage of
Khaja Jalal and the applicants' (Khaja Ahmaduddin, Khaja Abdul
Rehman, Khaja Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin) relationship to
him through Khaja Meeran, and what are the shares they are entitled
to in the share of Khaja Meeran in the entire land in Sy.Nos.366, 367
and 368 of Kanojiguda.
170. Since a lot of material was relied upon in this order
dt.24.01.2004 in proceedings No.L/760/2001 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella, and in the subsequent proceedings
thereafter no contra material placed by either the Reddy Brothers or
auction purchasers group, and no challenge to the claim of these 4
persons for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate as successors of
Inamdars was raised before other Authorities under the Act, and for
the first time during the course of hearing of these Writ Petitions
doubts were expressed about their relationship with Khaja Meeran /
Khaja Jalal, we hold that this contention was raised by them as a mere
after thought and there is no substance in it.
171. Any transactions entered into by one of the tenants in common
in respect of property would not bind others if the parties are
HAC,J & TA,J
::61:: wa_540_2007&batch
Mohammedans. This principle was laid down authoritatively in
T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha6. The Supreme Court declared:
"80. ... The Mohammedan law does not recognise the right
of one of shareholders being tenants-in-common for acting
on behalf of others. While discharging debt also they act as
independent debtors. A co-sharer cannot create charge on
property of co-heir. The right of Muslim heir is immediately
defined in each fraction of estate. Notion of joint family
property is unknown to Muslim law. Co-heir does not act as
agent while discharging debt but is an independent debtor
not as co-debtor or joint debtor. Co-sharers are not defined
as joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees."
Therefore, any transactions entered into with Reddy Brothers or
K.S.Chetty or auction purchasers by other members of the family of
Khaja Jalal would not bind the persons claiming through Khaja
Meeran (such as the applicants who filed Form-I seeking Occupancy
Right Certificate as successors of inamdars and through Khaja
Meeran).
172. As regards the proof of possession of the successors of
inamdars as on 01.11.1973 is concerned, no doubt their names are not
reflected in the Pahani of 1973-74 and the names of Reddy Brothers
are found therein as persons in occupation of the lands as on the said
date.
173. We have already pointed out earlier while rejecting the claim
for Occupancy Right Certificate by Reddy Brothers that O.S.No.65 of
(2017) 7 SCC 342
HAC,J & TA,J
::62:: wa_540_2007&batch
1962 before the Munisf Magistrate, Taluk West, Hyderabad West was
filed by Samala Narasimha Reddy, father of Samala Bhoopal Reddy,
Mamidi Raji Reddy, father of Mamidi Yadi Reddy against Khaja
Mohiuddin and 21 others and they obtained a collusive decree
dt.14.09.1962 by pleading only an agreement of sale dt.15.01.1960
without there being any sale deed; that such agreement of sale does
not confer any interest and was also obtained without prior sanction of
the Collector under Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and that the said suit is also hit by
the bar for filing civil suits under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Record
of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli.
A Faisal Patti was got prepared in 1979-80 in F.No.B1/3857/80
recording the names of Samala Narasimha Reddy and Mamidi Raji
Reddy in the records of rights with retrospective effect on the basis of
the above collusive decree.
But for such dubious exercise, the names of Reddy Brothers
would not have been included in the Record of Rights or in any other
Revenue records including the Pahani for 1973-74 (covering the date
01.11.1973) even though they were actually not in physical possession
of the property. No credence can be given to such an entry obtained
by such means.
Therefore the Pahanis must be presumed to retain the
original entries showing the Inamdar's successors showing their
possession prior to 1980 including as on 1.11.1973.
HAC,J & TA,J
::63:: wa_540_2007&batch
174. Under Section 4 of the Act, an inamdar or his successor is
entitled to be registered as an occupant of the inamland which
immediately before the date of vesting i.e. 01.11.1973 was under his
personal cultivation.
Since Reddy Brothers' claim has been rejected by us in this
order in spite of such entries in revenue records made in 1980 with
retrospective effect about their possession of their lands, and
admittedly there is no evidence that they were ever in physical
possession prior thereto, the successors of inamdars are held as being
in deemed possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of
Kanojiguda as on 01.11.1973.
This is because the names of Samala Narasimha Reddy and
Mamidi Raji Reddy, the fathers of Reddy Brothers were substituted in
1980 for the names of inamdars such as Khaja Mohiuddin and others
on the basis of the collusive decree in O.S.No.65 of 1962; and if such
entries are not valid, the earlier entries are deemed to continue
showing the possession of the inamdars' family members in the
Pahani for 1973-74 covering the date 01.11.1973.
175. In this view of the matter, we hold that the successors of
inamdars (i) Khaja Ahmeduddin, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah, (ii) Khaja
Naseeruddin, s/o. Khaja Ahmeduddin, (iii) Khaja Muneeruddin s/o.
Khaja Ahmeduddin and (iv) Abdul Rehman, s/o.late Khaja Abdullah
are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates under Section 4
HAC,J & TA,J
::64:: wa_540_2007&batch
of the Act in respect of Ac.11.16 gts in Sy.Nos.366, Ac.16.12 gts in
Sy.No.367 and Ac.11.29 gts in Sy.No.368 of Kanojiguda.
Conclusion
Having regard to the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at
by us, we propose to deal with the individual cases and the
applications therein as under :
I. Writ Appeal No.540 of 2007 and I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2009 and
I.A.No.1 of 2015:
(i) This Writ Appeal was in fact dismissed at the stage of
admission by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
on 02.07.2007 wherein the protected tenant K.Sai Reddy
challenged the orders dt.09.04.2007 in Writ Petition No.7093 of
2007 of the learned single Judge who had confirmed the order
dt.24.02.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District
in Case Nos.F1/1677/2004 and F1/5839/2004 and also the order
dt.24.01.2004 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella
Division, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District granting
Occupancy Rights Certificates to the successors of Inamdars for the
land admeasuring Acs.16.12 gts. in Sy.No.367 and Acs.11.29 gts.
in Sy.No.368.
The auction purchasers seek to challenge the same as they
were not made parties in the Writ Appeal by filing (a) an
application for leave to file Review of the order dt.02.07.2007 in
the Writ Appeal (I.A.No.1 of 2009), (b) a Review Petition to review
the said order (I.A.No.2 of 2009),(c) an implead application
HAC,J & TA,J
::65:: wa_540_2007&batch
(I.A.No.3 of 2009), (d) a petition to dispense with filing of the
certified copy of the order dt.02.07.2007 in Writ Appeal No.540 of
2007, (e) an application to condone the delay in filing the Writ
Appeal (I.A.No.5 of 2009) and (f) an application to bring on record
legal representatives of a deceased party.
However, the counsel for the auction purchasers Smt. Anasuya
who filed these applications stated that her clients have instructed
her not to pursue these applications. Therefore, all these
applications are dismissed.
II. Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008 :
This Writ Appeal is filed by the successors of Inamdars
challenging the order dt.07.02.2008 passed by the learned Single
Judge dismissing Review Petition No.134796 of 2007 filed by them
seeking a review of the order dt.08.03.2007 in Writ Petition
No.4799 of 2007 by refusing to condone the delay in filing the
same.
In that Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007, the successors of
Inamdars had challenged the orders dt.24.02.2007 passed by the
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case Nos.F1/1677/ 2004,
F1/5839/2004 and F1/5862/2005.
Having regard to the view we have taken in this batch of
matters that the successors of the inamdars are entitled to
Occupancy Rights Certificate, Writ Appeal No.1082 of 2008 is
allowed; order dt.07.02.2008 in Review WPMP.No.134796 of 2007
in Writ Petition No.4799 of 2007 is set aside; and the said Review
HAC,J & TA,J
::66:: wa_540_2007&batch
WPMP.No.134796 of 2007 is allowed; order dt.08.03.2007 in Writ
Petition No.4799 of 2007 is set aside; and Writ Petition No.4799 of
2007 is allowed.
III. WRIT APPEAL (SR).No.47966 of 2010
This Writ Appeal is preferred by the auction purchasers
challenging the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of
2008 whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court set aside, at
the instance of Mamidi Yadireddy, order dt.24.02.2007 passed by
the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.F1/1677/2004
and remanded the matter back to the said authority for fresh
consideration to consider the rival claims of Sri M. Yadi Reddy and
the successors of Inamdars.
I.A.No.s 1 of 2010 is filed for grant of leave to file the said Writ
Appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2010 is filed seeking suspension of the order
dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008, I.A.No.3 of 2010
is filed to condone the delay in filing the said Writ Appeal,
I.A.No.4 of 2010 is filed to dispense with filing of the certified
copy of the order of the learned single Judge, and I.A.Nos.1 of
2015, 2 of 2015 and 3 of 2015 are filed to bring on record legal
representatives of some of the parties who died.
Though the learned Single Judge in the order dt.19.03.2009 in
Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008 held that the nature and character
of the land was never in issue before the Joint Collector, since we
have gone into the said issue as well and held that the subject land
in Sy.No.s 366,267 and 368 of Kanojiguda is Inam Land, and
HAC,J & TA,J
::67:: wa_540_2007&batch
rejected the plea of the auction purchasers that it is Jagir land or
patta land, and since the learned Single Jude only remitted the
matter back to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration, we do not
see any point in granting leave to the auction purchasers to
challenge the order dt.19.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.16680 of
2008 or to entertain the other applications filed by the auction
purchasers therein.
Therefore, all the applications filed by the auction purchasers in
the said Writ Appeal are dismissed, and consequently the said Writ
Appeal is also dismissed.
IV. WRIT PETITION NO.5525 OF 2007
This Writ Petition was filed by Samala Bhoopal Reddy, one of
the Reddy brothers / Kabiz-e-Kadim group challenging the order
dt.24.02.2007 in Case No.F1/7177/2004 passed by the Joint
Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District setting aside the order
dt.24.01.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella
Division.
Since the claim of the Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy
Right Certificate has been rejected by us in this order, this Writ
Petition is dismissed and consequently I.A.No.1 of 2011 and
I.A.No.1 of 2012 filed by certain parties seeking impleadment in
the said Writ Petition are also dismissed.
V. WRIT PETITION NO.10127 OF 2007
This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchasers' group
challenging order dt.24.02.2007 passed in File No.F1/5862/2005 of
HAC,J & TA,J
::68:: wa_540_2007&batch
the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District dismissing their appeal
under Section 24 of the Act and holding that they are not entitled to
grant of Occupancy Right Certificate.
Since we have held in this order that the auction purchasers are
not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate, the said Writ
Petition is dismissed along with I.A.Nos.1 of 2011, I.A.No.1 of
2015, I.A.No.2 of 2015, I.A.No.1 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021.
VI. WRIT APPEAL No.1283 of 2009 :
This Writ Appeal is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy challenging the
order dt.18.09.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.19551 of 2009 by a
learned single Judge of this Court.
The said Writ Petition was filed by M. Ch. Kondaiah
Choudhary and 38 others against the State of Andhra Pradesh rep.
by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad and 5 others
complaining of refusal of the police to provide protection to them
for implementation of order dt.19.07.1999 in C.M.P.No.14048 of
1999 and to direct the police to give protection to them for
safeguarding the land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda
Village admeasuring Acs.39.07 gts.
At the stage of admission, the said Writ Petition was disposed
of on a concession by the learned Government Pleader that they are
ready to provide police protection and a direction was given to the
police to provide the required protection to the petitioners.
This order of the learned Single Judge was suspended in
W.A.No.1283 of 2009 filed by Mamidi Yadireddy.
HAC,J & TA,J
::69:: wa_540_2007&batch
Since we have held that Mamidi Yadireddy/Reddy brothers
is/are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate for the
above land, the said Writ Appeal is dismissed, and the interim order
granted therein is vacated. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2015 filed
therein to bring on record legal representatives of some parties is
also dismissed.
VII. Writ Petition No.10874 of 2009
This Writ Petition was filed by auction purchasers in a Court
auction held in O.S.No.76 of 1971 on 19.10.1987 by the Court of
the Additional Chief Judge - cum - Principal Special Judge for
SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad, i.e., auction purchasers,
challenging order dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/08
dt.08.08.2008 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District
confirming the order dt.25.02.2008 of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella in File No.L/3590/2006 in respect of Acs.11.06
gts. in Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda.
Since we have rejected the claims of auction purchasers for
grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of land in
Sy.No.366 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.3 of 2009, I.A.No.1 of 2011, I.A.No.2 of
2011 and I.A.No.3 of 2011 are dismissed.
VIII. Writ Petition No.16349 of 2009
This Writ Petition is filed by successors of Inamdars Khaja
Naseeruddin and Khaja Muneeruddin challenging the order
HAC,J & TA,J
::70:: wa_540_2007&batch
dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/2008 of the Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District confirming the order dt.25.02.2008 in File
No.L/3590/2006 in regard to extent of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366
of Kanojiguda. Under the said order, the Reddy brothers were
granted Occupancy Right Certificate by the Revenue Divisional
Officer which was confirmed by the Joint Collector.
Since the claims of the Reddy brothers for grant of Occupancy
Right Certificates in respect of Acs.11.06 gts. in Sy.No.366 of
Kanojiguda has been rejected by us in this order, and we have held
that the successors of Inamdars are entitled to the Occupancy
Rights Certificate for this land, this Writ Petition is allowed; order
dt.08.08.2008 in File No.F1/2372/2008 of the Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District and order dt.25.02.2008 in File
No.L/3590/2006 are both set aside; and it is held that the successors
of Inamdars are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate
for this land. Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2012 filed by some third-
party seeking impleadment therein is dismissed.
IX. Writ Petition No.13096 of 2010
This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchasers questioning
the order dt.28.05.2010 in proceedings No.L/35/2010 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division granting Occupancy
Right Certificate for the land in Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda
to the successors of Inamdars without availing the remedy of
Appeal under Section 24 of the Act.
HAC,J & TA,J
::71:: wa_540_2007&batch
Since we have held in this order that the auction purchasers are
not entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of
these two survey numbers, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2010 and I.A.No.3 of 2015 are both
dismissed.
X. Writ Petition No.408 of 2012
This Writ Petition is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy challenging
the order dt.14.12.2011 in Case No.F1/1718/2010 confirming the
order dt.28.05.2010 in File No.L/35/2010 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella granting Occupancy Rights Certificate
to the successors of Inamdars.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to
grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land in
Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed
and Interlocutory Application Nos.1, 6 and 7 of 2012: 1 of 2013:
1, 2 and 3 of 2014; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of 2015; 1 and 2 of
2016; 1 of 2017; 1 & 2 of 2018; and 1 of 2019 filed therein are
dismissed.
XI. Writ Petition No.25745 of 2012
This Writ Petition is filed by Mamidi Yadireddy seeking a
direction to the official respondents for restoration of their names in
Sy.Nos.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to
grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land in
HAC,J & TA,J
::72:: wa_540_2007&batch
Sy.No.367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and 1
of 2013 and 1 of 2015 are dismissed.
XII. Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014
This Writ Petition was filed by the successors of Inamdars
challenging order dt.17.10.2014 of the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District in Case No.F1/870/2014, F1/874/2014,
F1/890/2014, F1/898/2014 and F1/1797/2014 holding that the order
dt.03.03.2014 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri
Division is premature in view of the interim order granted on
15.01.2014 in WPMP.No.519 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.408 of
2014 prohibiting passing of final orders with regard to grant of
Occupancy Rights Certificate and holding that the Appeals are not
maintainable.
In view of the orders now passed in these Writ Petitions, the
said Writ Petition No.33555 of 2014 is disposed of directing the
respondents to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate to the successors
of Inamdars. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2014 filed therein is
dismissed.
XIII. Writ Petition No.36568 of 2014
This Writ Petition is filed by the Inamdars challenging an order
dt.21.01.2012 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District
rejecting a Review Petition filed by S.Bhoopal Reddy to Review his
order dt.14.12.2011 remanding the case to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella.
HAC,J & TA,J
::73:: wa_540_2007&batch
In the order dt.21.01.2012, the Joint Collector stated that there
is no need to review the matter and S. Bhoopal Reddy can approach
the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case was remanded to him.
In this Writ Petition the Inamdars contended that the Joint
Collector has no power of Review under the Act.
Having regard to the fact that we have held that the successors
of Inamdars are entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate,
no orders are necessary in this Writ Petition and it is closed.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2014 therein is dismissed.
XIV. Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015
This Writ Petition was filed by S.Bhoopal Reddy challenging
order dt.17.10.2014 of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in
Case No.F1/870/2014, F1/874/2014, F1/890/2014, F1/898/2014
and F1/1797/2014 holding that the order dt.03.03.2014 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division is premature in
view of the interim order granted on 15.01.2014 in WPMP.No.519
of 2014 in Writ Petition No.408 of 2014 prohibiting passing of final
orders with regard to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and
holding that the Appeals are not maintainable.
This Writ Petition No.3159 of 2015 is dismissed for the reasons
contained in this order. Consequently, I.A.No.1, 2 and 5 of 2015
filed therein are dismissed.
HAC,J & TA,J
::74:: wa_540_2007&batch
XV. Writ Appeal (SR).No.12789 of 2015
This Writ Appeal is filed by one C.V.S. Mahalakshmi claiming
to be a purchaser of 250 Sq.yds. from S. Narasimha Reddy. She
sought leave to file Writ Appeal against the judgment dt.19.03.2009
in Writ Petition No.16689 of 2008. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 are
leave applications, I.A.No.3 of 2015 is a suspension petition and
I.A.No.3 of 2016 is an application for condonation of delay in filing
the Writ Appeal.
Since we have held that the Reddy brothers are not entitled to
grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, we do not deem it necessary
to grant leave to the appellant to file this Writ Appeal.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 are dismissed.
Consequently, the Writ Appeal (SR).No.127899 of 2015 and
I.A.Nos.3 of 2015 and 3 of 2016 are also dismissed.
FINAL CONCLUSION
176. In the result, we hold that the successors of inamdars are
entitled to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the
Act in respect of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda, H/o.
Alwal, Ranga Reddy District, and that the Reddy Brothers/ Kabiz-e-
Kadim Group and the auction purchasers are not entitled to the same.
A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of
the Act in respect of the said land to successors of inamdars within
four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on
complying with all other formalities prescribed by law.
HAC,J & TA,J
::75:: wa_540_2007&batch
177. No costs.
178. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these matters shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ
_______________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Date : 28.09.2021
Svv/Vsv/Ndr
