Telangana High Court
B. Laxmi, And 5 Otrs. vs The Govt.Of A.P.,Rep.By ... on 12 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT APPEAL Nos.471, 472 and 475 OF 2013
W.A.No.471 of 2013
Between:
# 1. B. Laxmi (died) per
2. B. Bikshapathi, S/o. late B. Mallaiah,
Aged 53 years, Occ: BHEL Employee,
R/o.H.No.21-83, Venkatapuram, Post: Tirumalgiri,
Secunderabad and others (died) per L.Rs.
Appellant Nos.7 and 8 .. Appellants
And
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.,
By its Principal Secretary to Revenue,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
.. Respondents
Date of Order Pronounced: 12.12.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may (Yes/No)
be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be (Yes/No)
marked to Law Reports/Journals?
3. Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to (Yes/No)
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
2 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.471, 472 and 475 OF 2013
W.A.No.471 of 2013
% Dated 12.12.2023
# 1. B. Laxmi (died) per
2. B. Bikshapathi, S/o. late B. Mallaiah,
Aged 53 years, Occ: BHEL Employee,
R/o.H.No.21-83, Venkatapuram, Post: Tirumalgiri,
Secunderabad and others (died) per L.Rs.
Appellant Nos.7 and 8 .. Appellants
And
2. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.,
By its Principal Secretary to Revenue,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Madan Mohan Rao,
Senior Counsel rep.,
Mr. G. Dhananjai, counsel for the
appellants
^ Counsel for respondents : 1. Mr. B. Venkata Rama Rao,
counsel for respondent No.8
in W.A.No.471 of 2013; and
for respondent Nos.17, 19, 25
27 and 30 in W.A.No.472 of
2013 and for respondent
Nos.1 to 6 in W.A.No.475 of
2013
2. Mr. A.P. Reddy, counsel for
respondent No.53
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2023 (1) ALD 83 (TS) (FB)
2. 2003 (6) ALD 75
3. 1977 (107) ITR 702
4. 2014 (9) SCC 657
3 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.471, 472 and 475 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
These three intra court appeals are filed against the
common order dated 28.01.2013, passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition Nos.26578 and 25790 of 2003 and
27777 of 2009. Writ Appeal No.471 of 2013 is filed against
the order passed in W.P.No.26578 of 2003, whereas in Writ
Appeal No.475 of 2013 the order passed in W.P.No.25790 of
2003 has been challenged. In Writ Appeal No.472 of 2013
the order passed in W.P.No.27777 of 2009 is under
challenge.
2. Heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. G.Dhananjai, counsel for the appellants and
Mr. B.Venkata Rama Rao, counsel for respondent No.8 in
W.A.No.471 of 2013 and for respondent Nos.17, 19, 25, 27 and
30 in W.A.No.472 of 2013 and for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in
4 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
W.A.No.475 of 2013. Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.53 in W.A.No.472 of 2013.
3. Since the issue involved in all the three Writ Appeals is
one and the same, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For the facility of
reference, the facts from W.A.No.472 of 2013 are being
referred to.
4.1 One Mr. Khaja Jalal Sab was inamdar of land in respect
of land measuring Acs.21.26 guntas of old Survey No.290.
On account of resurvey, the same was assigned as new Survey
No.391 measuring Acs.16.35 guntas at Alwal Village classified
as pan maqta. Upon his demise, vide mutation proceedings,
dated 28.09.1968, the names of legal heirs of Mr. Khaja Jalal
Sab viz., Mr. Khaja Mohinuddin and others appear in the
revenue records as inamdars/pattedars. Shri Baikani Mallaih,
Shri Nimmana Guruva Reddy, Shri Yeruva Chandra Reddy,
Shri Dasaram Chandra Reddy and Shri Pathri Pochaiah were
the tenants/possessors of inamdars of the said land. The
5 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
inamdars sold land measuring Acs.10.00 guntas to one
Shri Nimmana Guruva Reddy, Shri Baikani Mallaiah & 3
others vide unregistered sale deed in the year 1970. The
tenants/possessors executed a registered agreement of sale in
the year 1980 in favour of Shri Yadagiri and Smt. Alladi
Saraswathi to an extent of Ac.7.19 guntas which is their share
after earmarking an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas out of Ac.12.19
guntas in Survey No.391 to the inamdars.
4.2 Thereafter, the inamdars executed General Power of
Attorney in favour of Shri Yadaiah and Smt. Alladi Saraswathi
to an extent of land of Ac12.19 guntas in the year 1980. In the
year 1981, Shri Baikani Mallaiah and others executed General
Power of Attorney in favour of Shri V.Damodar Reedy to an
extent of Ac.9.13 guntas. The GPA holders have executed
registered sale deeds in favour of different plot holders after
making layouts.
4.3 After death of Shri Baikani Mallaiah, his legal
representatives filed an application before the Revenue
6 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'Primary Authority')
seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate (hereinafter referred to as
'ORC') in respect of land measuring Acs.16.35 guntas. The
RDO has granted ORC to legal representatives of Shri Baikani
Mallaiah for an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. The ORC was issued
in respect of land measuring Ac.18 guntas and Acs.5.20
guntas in favour of Shri Agam Reddy, Shri Yadagiri and Shri
Damodar Reddy respectively. Aggrieved by the orders of RDO,
an appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District i.e., Appellate Authority. The Appellate
Authority by an order, dated 15.11.2003, in case
No.F1/7992/1996 dismissed the appeal and set aside the ORC
issued by the RDO and declared that none of the claimants are
in possession of the said land and the land vests with the
State. The Appellate Authority further directed the MRO to
take possession of the land. The appellants have filed Writ
Petition Nos.25790 and 26798 of 2003 challenging the order of
the Appellate Authority.
7 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
4.4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh came up with a
policy viz. "The Andhra Pradesh transfer of rights to certain
specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government
lands policy 2008". The said policy was notified vide
G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated
16.02.2008. A comprehensive set of guidelines were issued
vide the G.O. As per the said policy the government intended to
transfer small extent of lands and regularize the same, for
certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned
Government lands in the context of longstanding occupation
by members of weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle
income group people, etc. by way of structures or otherwise.
By following the said policy guidelines, the authorities
transferred and assigned ownership rights through
Conveyance Deeds for the said categories of individuals.
4.5 After enquiry through enquiry teams, the Tahsildar,
Malkajgiri Mandal submitted proposals for transfer of rights in
respect of such categories of persons/individuals who were in
longstanding occupation of government lands. The said
8 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
proposals were scrutinized and approved by District Level
Committee at Chief Commissioner of Land Administration for
transfer of rights for smaller extent to the members by fixing a
market value to be borne by the alienee (i.e., members of
weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle income group
people etc.). After remittance of the fixed amount in the
treasury for the cost of the land, the smaller extents of the
land(s) stood transferred and regularized in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated
16.02.2008.
4.6 These Conveyance Deeds and the regularization of
smaller extents of land in Survey No.391/A were challenged by
the Appellants in W.P.No.27777 of 2009.
4.7 For the sake of clarity, the reliefs in three Writ Petitions
are extracted below:
Writ Petition No.26578 of 2003 was filed for the following
relief:
9 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
"...Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue order or
direction or writ more particularly one in the nature
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the
Respondent No.2 herein dated 15.11.2003 in the
Case No.F1/7992/96 as illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the provisions of the AP (Telangana
Area) Inams Abolition Act and set aside the same
and consequently direct the respondents to grant
the Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the
petitioners in respect of the lands in survey
No.391/A admeasuring 16 acres 35 guntas
situated at Alwal Village, Malkajigiri Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of Justice and
pass such other order or orders.."
W.P.No.25790 of 2003 came to be filed for the following
relief:
"...Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
(i) declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 in
proceedings No.F1/7992/1996 dated 15.11.2003
as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14, 21 and
300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same (ii) declaring the order of the
respondent No.2 in proceedings No.2/L/429194
dated 30.12.1995 granting Occupancy Rights
Certificate in favour of Respondent Nos.4 to 9 to an
extent of Ac.1.30 guntas and to respondent No.10
to an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas as arbitrary and
illegal; (iii) pass such orders..."
10 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.27777 of 2009 was filed for
the following:
"...Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ,
order or direction, more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
respondent No.5 representing the 1st respondent in
executing the Conveyance Deeds as mentioned in
the Schedule enclosed to this affidavit in support of
Writ Petition, in respect of Sy.No.391/A, situated
at Kanajiguda Village, Alwal of Malkajgiri Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent
Nos.10 to 39 as illegal, arbitrary and against the
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, by holding that the said
Conveyance Deeds are non-est in Law and null
and void and not valid and not binding on the
petitioners and to pass such other order or
orders..."
4.8 The learned Single Judge decided all the three Writ
Petitions, but, however passed an order holding that the claim
for regularization of the land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166
Revenue (Assignment) dated 16.03.2008 as justified.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that in W.A.No.472 of 2013, the lis before
the Appellate Authority was whether the order passed by the
11 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
Primary Authority is legal or valid and the Appellate Authority
travelled beyond the scope in holding that the land belongs to
Government and that the order is not a speaking order and no
opportunity was granted and should have remanded the
matter to the RDO.
5.1 Attention of this Court has been invited to the order of
Appellate Authority to buttress the contention that the
Appellate Authority has erred and travelled beyond the scope.
It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has observed that
the land is fallow (Padava) at one place and as grazing land at
another place. It is further contended that the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (herein after
referred to as "the Act, 1955") does not define "agricultural
land" and submitted that in Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950, the definition for
"agricultural land" under Section 2(c) has to be considered,
which is as follows:
12 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
"Agricultural land means land which is used or is capable
of being used for agriculture or reserved for growing
forests and includes:
i. Fallow land..."
It is contended that the test to determine the land as
agricultural land is whether land is used or capable of being
used for agriculture.
5.2 It is further contended that the Appellate Authority has
held the land to be fallow (padava) and hence, the same is an
agricultural land and the appellants are entitled for grant of
ORC as they are in occupation, possession and enjoyment.
Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by a full Bench of
this Court in the case of Executive Officer, Group of
Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District v. Joint
Collector, Mahabubnagar and others 1 and it has been
submitted that the appellants are successors in interest and
have been in continuous occupation, possession and
enjoyment and are entitled for grant of ORC. Reliance is also
2023 (1) ALD 83 (TS) (FB)
13 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
placed on the judgment in the case of Venkata Reddi v.
Commissioner of land reforms and urban land ceilings
and Appellate Authority, Hyderabad and another 2 wherein
it was held that land which is used or is capable of being used
for agriculture is agricultural land and it includes fallow land.
5.3 It is contended that Sections 2(o) and 2(q) of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 defines "urban land"
and "vacant land" and for the purposes of Sections 2(o) and
2(q), Agriculture is defined as including horticulture but does
not include "raising of grass". Relying on the definitions, an
attempt has been made to counter the observation made by the
Appellate Authority in the order that "ORC cannot be granted
for grazing lands". Further reliance is placed on the judgment
rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Krishna Mining Company 3 to buttress the contention that
the Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the scope.
2003 (6) ALD 75
1977 (107) ITR 702
14 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
5.4 We find no force in the contentions. The Appellate
Authority had held that persons falling within the ambit of
Sections 4-8 of the Act, 1955 do not have any right to sell the
lands and execute sale deeds under the Act, 1955 as they do
not have any right, title or interest on the lands. The Appellate
Authority, after verification of records, held that the original
pahani for the year 1973-74 was tampered. This Court in a
Letters Patent Appeal will not venture on a fact finding
mission. The learned Single Judge, while upholding the
Appellate Authority's order, has declined to interfere under the
extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We subscribe to the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
5.5 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that there is no flaw in the order passed by the
Appellate Authority and that the Tahsildar is not empowered to
alienate the land and it is only the Collector who is empowered.
It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the fact of possession of the appellants' father from
15 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
1951 and that after his demise, the appellants are in
possession. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred
in holding that the Government is justified in regularizing the
possession of purchasers pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue
(Ass. POT) Department, dated 16.02.2008.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents that the learned Single Judge declined to interfere
with the order of the Appellate Authority as the order does not
suffer from any infirmity.
6.1 It is submitted that the persons who have purchased the
lands will acquire a status superior to that of the tenant and
as such they are disentitled to claim ORC. It is submitted that
in the judgment rendered by a full Bench of this Court, it has
been held that purchaser of land from inamdar is not a
successor in interest and cannot apply for ORC. It is further
submitted that while granting ORCs, the authorities have to
consider whether the individuals/persons qualify to make an
application.
16 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
6.2 It is also submitted that the applicant has to be in
personal cultivation of the land for grant of ORC and that a
distinction has to be made between the nature of agricultural
land and right over the land. It is submitted that the Act, 1955
intends to grant occupancy rights to 5 categories of persons
covered by Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, 1955. Our attention is
invited to Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(f), 2(g), 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act,
1955 and contended that the appellants are not entitled for
grant of ORC and that regularization of plots is valid as per
G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated
16.02.2008. It is contended that by virtue of Section 3 (1) of
the Act, 1955, all inam lands came to be vested in the State
Government.
6.3 Reliance is placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited v.
Regional Director, State Employees Insurance
Corporation 4 and contended that meaning to the words in the
statute should be understood in the context and objects of the
2014 (9) SCC 657
17 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
legislature must be taken into consideration. Learned counsel
contended that as per the full Bench Judgment of this Court,
purchasers are not entitled for grant of ORC and appellants
are not successors in interest.
6.4 It is submitted that respondents No.10 to 39 have
purchased plots of varying sizes from the GPA holders i.e., Shri
Yadaiah and Shri Damodar Reddy and from certain other
persons in the years 1994-2002 and it is these unofficial
respondents whose plots have been regularized vide policy viz.
"The Andhra Pradesh transfer of rights to certain specified
categories of occupants of unassigned Government lands policy
2008" notified vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT)
Department, dated 16.02.2008.
6.5 It is also contended that a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of M.Ramender Reddy (1 supra) has held that the
persons who are not in actual possession and enjoyment (by
way of cultivation) as on the date i.e., 01.11.1973 are not
entitled for ORC and the same has been upheld by a full Bench
18 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
of this Court. Further submitted that there is no possibility of
agriculture being carried out in the said land in the year
1973-74 as residential structures have come up.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.53 has
contended that the appellants/purchasers have taken dual
stand of being purchasers and tenants, which is not tenable.
It was also contended that the pahani for the year 1973-74 has
been tampered and the grant of ORC to the extent of Ac.1.30
guntas is not valid and the Appellate Authority has rightly
reversed the order of RDO which was upheld by the learned
Single Judge and the order of the learned Single Judge needs
no interference. It is further contended that when the land is
said to be fallow/padava, it means that the land is not put to
personal cultivation as on 01.11.1973. It is submitted that as
on the date of 01.11.1973, the individuals/persons have to be
in possession and should have been personally cultivating the
said land for grant of ORC.
19 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the record.
8.1 Inams in the Telangana Area have been abolished and
vested in the State as per the Act, 1955 w.e.f. 20.07.1955, but
the relevant date for the determination of rights of the
occupants, who are in personal cultivation on the Inam lands,
is 01.11.1973. It is on this date, either the inamdar or the
categories of persons under the Act, 1955, if are in possession
of land, would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights.
8.2 The learned Single Judge has not upset the Appellate
Authority's finding that the original pahani for the year 1973-
74 has been tampered. We have perused the order of Appellate
Authority. The categorical finding has been arrived at by the
said authority only after verifying the original pahani of the
year 1973-74. The authority has further held that the
cultivation extent has been added subsequently with slight
change of ink and that the script is different from the rest of
the pages. The finding that the RDO has not verified the
20 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
Sethwar and relevant pahani for the year 1973-74 is crucial.
The findings of the Appellate Authority have been upheld by
the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly
concluded that there is no valid ground for disturbing the
findings, on the said factual aspect of tampering of revenue
record.
8.3 We have perused the policy viz. "The Andhra Pradesh
transfer of rights to certain specified categories of occupants of
unassigned Government lands policy 2008". The said policy
was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT)
Department, dated 16.02.2008. A comprehensive set of
guidelines were issued vide the G.O. As per the said policy the
Government intended to transfer small extents of land(s) and
regularize, for certain specified categories of occupants of
unassigned Government lands in the context of longstanding
occupation by members of weaker sections, slum dwellers, low
and middle income group people, etc. by way of structures or
otherwise. The Conveyance Deeds and the registration of the
small extents of land(s) to the respondents have been carried
21 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
out following the guidelines issued by the Government. The
learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Government is
justified in regularizing the possession of purchasers pursuant
to G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated
16.02.2008 and has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition.
We see no grounds for interference of the order of the learned
Single Judge.
8.4 A reading of the provisions of Act, 1955, Sections 4 to 8
indicates the persons who are entitled for grant of ORC. For
the purpose of grant of ORC, relevant date is 01.11.1973 as
held by a catena of decisions of this Court and confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The indispensible requirement
namely the actual possession of land and personal cultivation
is a sine quo non for grant of ORC as on 01.11.1973.
This requirement has to be met by verification of the
relevant records by the authority and also taking into
consideration the documentary evidence relied upon by the
applicants/claimants. In the present case, the finding by the
Appellate Authority is that the pahani for the year 1973-74 is
22 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
tampered, which is crucial. The Appellate Authority has
rightly negated the claims. The learned Single Judge has
declined to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority.
The findings of the fact record by the Appellate Authority as
well as learned Single Judge are based on meticulous
appreciation of evidence on record. The findings do not suffer
from any infirmity warranting interference in these appeals.
9. This Court does not perceive any merit in these appeals
and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any in these Writ
Appeals, shall stand closed.
__________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:12.12.2023
KRR
Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
(B/o)
KH
23 HCJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.471, 472 & 475 of 2013
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.471, 472 and 475 OF 2013
Date:12.12.2023
KRR
