E.Harikishan And 3 Others vs The Joint Collector Cum Appellate ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4343 Tel

Telangana High Court

E.Harikishan And 3 Others vs The Joint Collector Cum Appellate ... on 18 December, 2023

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

           Civil Revision Petition No.2341 OF 2012
ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2012 in Case

No.F1/782/2012 passed by the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy

District confirming the orders dated 04.12.2011 passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in File No.

L/3509/2011, dated 04.12.2011, the petitioners filed the

present Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred as per their array before the Revenue Divisional

Officer.

3. The brief facts, which necessitated the revision petitioners

to file the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:

a) The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of

H.Nos.1/65/25/6, 1/65/25/5, 1/65/25/7 and 1/65/25/7 vide

document bearing Nos.5152/2000, 5158/2000, 5146/2000 and

5157/2000 having purchased the same from their vendor Smt.

Hemalatha Devi, who purchased the same from I. Nagesh and

five others including Achaiah i.e., father of respondent Nos.3 to

5) represented by their registered Power of Attorney Holder Sri

K. Ramulu under registered documents No.1357/1989, 804 of 2 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

1993 and 341 of 1994. The vendor of the petitioners

constructed a room in the said property after her purchase. The

petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the property without any interruption and also paying

municipal tax to the concerned authorities. The watchman of

the petitioners resides in the rooms constructed and the

properties are protected by a compound wall in part and fenced

in part.

b) The petitioners obtained No Objection Certificate from

Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,

Hyderabad vide Proceedings No. F-13235/NOC/08, dated

05.08.2008, wherein the said authority made it clear that the

property is not vested in the Government. The petitioners have

applied to GHMC for regularization of their plots under LRS

Scheme and accordingly necessary charges were collected and

regularized the plots through Proceedings Nos. LRS/472/G/CR-

1/West Zone/GHMC/2008, LRS/469/G/CR-11/West

Zone/GHMC/2008, LRS/470/G/CR-1/West Zone/GHMC/2008

and LRS/471/G/CR-1/West Zone/GHMC/2008 dated

16.12.2008.

c) The petitioners have also obtained electricity connection

to the said property in the year 2008 and paying necessary 3 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

charges to the same. On 01.02.2012, the respondent Nos. 3 to

5 threatened the watchman of the petitioners claiming that they

have obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate (hereafter will be

referred as 'ORC') issued by the respondent No.2. On enquiry

they came to know that respondent No.2 had issued

proceedings No.L/3509/2011, dated 14.12.2011 favouring

respondent Nos.3 to 5 purportedly granting ORC in respect of

Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.28 of Gutla Begumpet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal on the premise that the their father Sri

Achaiah was the inamdar and respondent Nos.3 to 5 being his

legal heirs are entitled to the issuance of ORC.

d) The petitioners were not put on any notice, besides the

whole proceedings are vitiated by mischief, malafides and non

application of mind. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

have filed appeal under Section 24 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of

Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the Act') before

the respondent No.1, who granted interim order of suspension

and numbered the appeal as Case No.F1/782/2012, however,

the appeal was dismissed the said appeal on 05.05.2012.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present

Civil Revision Petition.

4 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

4. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.3 to 5 are as under:

a) The sale deed date 25.10.1995 purported to have been

executed by power of attorney holder Sri K. Ramulu

representing the father of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 is void and

unenforceable document. The father of the respondent Nos.3 to

5 never executed any power of attorney, transferring the

property rights. Even assuming that the father of the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 executed the power of attorney, he died

on 01.01.1995 as per death certificate dated 03.04.2012. As

such the question of executing the sale deed bearing No.10680

of 1995 dated 25.10.1995 by the power of attorney holder in

favour of the petitioners' vendor does not arise and it is void and

unenforceable in law.

b) The father of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 is the inamdar of

the property and was in possession of the land on the relevant

date as per the provisions of the Act. On the death of their

father, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 after due enquiry, the

respondent No.2 has granted Occupancy Rights in respect of the

lands in Sy. No.28 admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas in favour of the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide proceedings Lr. No.L/3509/2011,

dated 04.12.2011 as per the provisions of the Act.

5 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

c) The petitioners challenging the Occupancy Rights

Certificate issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent

Nos.3 to 5 was challenged before the respondent No.1 under

Section 23 of the Act, which is not maintainable. However, the

respondent No.1 considered the appeal in proper perspective

and gave clear finding that as per the pahanis for the years

1955-58 and 1972-73, name of Sri Achaiah i.e., father of the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 was recorded as inamdar, pattadar and

enjoyer and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled to Occupancy

Rights.

d) The sale deed, which the petitioners are claiming,

executed in the year 2000 in their favour does not confer any

interest over the property and they have no locus standi to

maintain even the appeal before the Appellate Forum. The sale

deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are void and

unenforceable in law.

e) The reference of the pendency of the matter in civil courts

and conveyance deeds has no relevance to the grant of

Occupancy Rights as per the provisions of the Act as they are

subsequent to the year 1973.

6 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

f) The dispute is with regard to land to an extent of Ac.0.37

guntas in sy. No.28 of Guttala Begumpet Village.

g) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella has opined that

as per pahani for the year 1973-74 the land to an extent of

A.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.28 of Guttala Begumpet Village is

classified as mafi inam and the Preliminary Enquiry Report

discloses that Sri Chittaiah and Sri Agaiah were recorded as

inamds (as per se sessala pahani for the year 1955-58 and

thereafter Sri Agaiah expired leaving behind his three sons.

h) The Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District in his order,

dated 05.05.2012 observed that as per Section 3 (1)(b)(6) of the

Act, 1955 "all the rights, title and interest vesting in the

inamdar Kbiz-e-khadim permanent tenant, protected tenant

and non -protected tenant in respect of the inam land and other

than the interest expressly saved or under the provisions of this

act and including those in all communal lands cultivated and

uncultivated land" (whether assessed or not) waste lands,

pasture lands, forests, mines and mineral, quarries, rivers and

streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall

cease and be vested absolutely in the state free from all

encumbrances." The Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District by 7 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

relying upon a decision in Lokraj v. Kishanalal 1 observed in the

impugned order that any transactions made in respect of inam

land are null and void by operation of law till the ORC is

granted as per the Act.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record including the

grounds under Civil Revision Petition.

6. The crux of the issue to be decided is whether the subject

land is inam land or not. The first and primary duty of the

official, who can grant Occupancy Rights Certificate is to

identify the nature of the land i.e., for instance whether the land

is inam land or not. Thus, the Act has prescribed the procedure

under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act to be followed to identify the

nature of the land. Section 3 of the Act empowers the MRO

either suo moto or on application to determine whether a

particular land is an inam land and whether such inam land is

in a ryotwari, zamindari or inam village and whether such inam

land is held by an institution. The RDO, in the note file, though

mentioned that case may be taken on record under Section 4 (1)

of the Act and notices in Form - II may be issued while fixing

the date of hearing, has not issued any notice to the interested

parties. As on the date of enquiry, there were plenty of records

1 1995 SCC-3-29 8 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

and documents in respect of the subject land in favour of third

parties and the revision petitioners, who have substantial

interest in the subject property. But admittedly no notice was

issued to any of such third parties or the revision petitioners

prior to passing of the impugned orders for the reasons best

known to the authorities.

7. As seen from the record, the father of respondent Nos.3 to

5 was already granted Ryotwari Patta way back in the year 1969

vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.4762/69, dated 23.12.1969 in

respect of land in dispute. Once late E.Achaiah, who is alleged

to be the inamdar, was granted ryotwari patta in respect of the

subject land i.e., Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.28 of

Guttalabegumpet Village in the year 1969 itself, the question of

respondent Nos.3 to 5 claiming occupancy rights certificate

being the successors of E. Achaiah inamdar does not arise.

8. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the

respondent No.1 failed to appreciate that the father of

respondent Nos.3 to 5 executed a registered General Power of

Attorney in favour of K. Ramulu, who had transferred and

registered a proper conveyance deed in favour of the vendor of

the petitioners, thus, the transactions are well recorded and

recognizable. Even if the ORC is to be granted in favour of the 9 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

respondent Nos.3 to 5, it could only ensure to the benefit of the

petitioners under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.

9. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioners that there is a delay and laches of over 17

years in passing the orders to set aside the conveyance in favour

of the petitioners is wholly illegal and untenable. It is further

contended that the Civil Court is ceased of the matter and there

is an injunction operating in favour of the petitioners against

respondent Nos.3 to 5 and therefore, ought not to have passed

an order observing to set aside the registered sale deeds in

favour of the petitioners.

10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners that Respondent No.1 failed to appreciate that he

has no jurisdiction to set aside the registered sale deeds and the

same was not within the scope of enquiry. As seen from the

record, the respondent No.1 in issue No.2 passed comments

with regard to the validity of the sale deeds pertaining to the

revision petitioners. Now the question is whether a revenue

court can exercise its jurisdiction to make an opinion on the

validity of registered sale deeds. In Jamila Begum v. Shami 10 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Mohd. 2, the Supreme Court held that a registered document

carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed and

that it is for the party challenging the genuineness of the

transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law.

Therefore, there is a statutory presumption of validity of a duly

executed registered deed and the onus is on the person who

denies the same and it is to be proved in the proceedings of the

original suit. Thus, a revenue Court has to presume the validity

and genuineness of a duly registered sale deed. In Asset

Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham 3, wherein

it was held that only Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine

validity of a registered sale deed and if a party questions the

very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to

execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy

will only be to go to the civil Court. Only the Civil Court has

jurisdiction to decide the validity of a registered deed conferring

title over a land to another person. The question of challenging

the registered sale deed does not lie before Revenue Court and

the same has to be decided by a Civil Court of competent

jurisdiction. The Revenue Tribunal shall reject the question of

challenging the validity of the sale deed as it has no jurisdiction

(2019) 2 SCC 727

(2022) 8 SCC 210 11 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

to examine the validity of the sale deed. In view of the above

discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the

respondent No.1 ought not to have expressed its opinion on the

validity of the registered sale deeds of the revision petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed

reliance on a decision in Kottakapu Sai Reddy v. Joint

Collector cum Appellate Authority under A.P. 4, wherein this

Court observed as under:

"96. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others 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 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 Ambaji 5 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.

5 AIR 1971 SC 1859

12 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

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."

12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon a

decision in Nambi Venkataiah and another v. Venu Gopala

Swamy Temple, Mahabubnagar District and others 6, the High

Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh observed that

the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in granting

Occupancy Rights Certificate subsequent to A.P. Act 19 of 1994

coming into force, appears to be in contravention of the

provision to Section 4 (1). In Gulf Oil Corporation Limited v.

Udasin Mutt 7, the Apex Court observed as under:

"47. The scope of inquiry under the said Act was restricted to grant of occupancy rights which was negated for multiple reasons including the fact that the land was not under agriculture on the crucial date. Since the Inams Abolition Act is a special Act in respect of abolition of inams and conferment of occupancy rights, it is an order not by a Tribunal having a plenary jurisdiction. The Tribunal under the Inams Abolition Act had limited jurisdiction to decide the questions arising under the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, the findings recorded in such proceedings neither act as estoppel, nor res judicata for any other proceedings.

13. But in the case on hand, the respondents have not placed

any evidence to substantiate that as on the relevant date they

6 2011 SCC Online AP 638 7 2022 SCC Online SC 1209 13 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

were in possession of the suit schedule property and they could

not even establish that they were cultivating the said land as on

the date of passing of the impugned order. In fact, the land is

neither agricultural land nor vacant land as on the date of

impugned order but the said land was converted into plots and

residential place.

14. In Abdul Qaiyum v. S. Sathaiah and others 8, the High

Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that while

for abolition of inams and vesting of the same in the State that

date reckoned is 20.07.1955 but determination of Occupancy

rights, the date shall be reckoned as 01.11.1973. It is to be

observed that Occupancy Rights Certificate can be

issued only if the said property was an Inam Property

and covered under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act

1955. However, the Respondent No.2 (RDO) has issued

ORC and Respondent No.1 Joint Collector has

confirmed the ORC without there being any record or

evidence to prove that the property was an Inam

property and that the father of Respondent Nos.3 to 5

Shri E. Achaiah was the Inam holder. Respondents

could not provide any details or documents as to how

8 1994 (2) A.P.L.J.192 14 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

their father got the Inam and who gave such property

as inam. On the contrary, the available records show

that Sri E. Achaiah was a pattadar and not an Inamdar.

In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the

revision petitioners relied upon a decision in S. Mallesh and

others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 9, the

High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held as

under:

"The petitioners have neither pleaded nor established either before the primary or the appellate authority under the Inams Abolition Act or even before this court that the Inam Takhta Register of Hakimpet village, drawn up and maintained (under the provisions of Rule-3 of the 1975 Rules records the schedule lands as an inam granted for discharging Neeradi service nor have the petitioners assailed the Hakimpet village records before any appropriate authority or forum. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever marshalled by the petitioners to establish that the schedule lands are inam and that they are inamdars within the meaning of these expressions as defined in Sections 2(1)(c) and (d) of the Inams Abolition Act, the petitioners have fundamentally failed to discharge their burden, of establishing their claim to be inamdars, which is the substratum of their application for accord of registration as occupants. Inam proceedings being a great act of State [as observed by the Privy Council in Arunachallam Chetty (23 supra)] in the absence of strong and probative evidence marshaled by the petitioners establishing their claim, no credence could be accorded to a mere assertion that the schedule land is inam or that they are inamdars thereof. In any event without relevant evidence qua the

9 2009 SCC Online AP 726

15 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

village records, the schedule lands cannot be held to be 'inam', in view of the definition in Section 2(1)(c)."

15. In Syed Ameenuddin Hussain v. Joint Collector,

Medak District at Sanga Reddy and others 10 the High Court

for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that thought it is

to be accepted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide

an issue, when such an issue is to be dealt by a Special

Tribunal constituted under a statue, and the jurisdiction of the

Civil Court is explicitly or impliedly barred, yet every Court

possess inherent powers in its very constitution, such powers

which are necessary to do the right and undo the wrong in the

course of administration of justice in the maters which are

brought before it.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that

the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Civil

Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

and in fact the revision petitioners ought to have filed the

revision under Section 28 of the Act. On the contrary, the

learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon a

decision in A.P. Punjabi Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector,

10 2003 SCC Online AP 574 16 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Hyderabad District and others 11, wherein the High Court for

the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held as under:

"11. In G.V. Narsimha Reddy v. Syed Aktar Ali, 1988 (2) ALT 136 Justice Jagannadharao, as he then was, discussed the scheme of the Act extensively and held that a revision under Section 28 is maintainable against an order passed by the Joint Collector, in exercise of appellate power under sub-section (1) of Section 24 also. His Lordships further held that even if there exists any doubt in this regard, such revision can be entertained, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In Mathan Sangaiah v. Patel Eswarappa, 1997(2) A.P.L.J. 494 Justice Y.V. Narayana took a different view and held that the order passed by a Joint Collector, in exercise of appellate power, is not amenable to revision, under Section 28 of the Act. The question as to whether the High Court can exercise its power, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not discussed.

Therefore, notwithstanding the doubt as to the maintainability of revision, under Section 28 of the Act, this Court is of the view that it can be dealt with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

17. In S. Narasimha and others v. Joint Collector - II,

Ranga Reddy District and another 12, the High Court for the

erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh observed as under:

"11. Having regard to the precedential conflict on the question as to the availability of a revisional remedy to this Court under Section 28 of the Act, I consider it appropriate to consider the present revision as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while leaving the resolution of the conflict [in the decisions in G.V. Narasimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (supra)], for an appropriate occasion, by a Division Bench of this Court."

11 (2004) 5 ALD 644 12 2006 SCC Online AP 57 17 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

18. In view of the above observations, this Court is of

the opinion that though there is specific provision

under Section 28 of the Act, the present Civil Revision

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

also maintainable.

19. Coming to the rights of the revision petitioners

over the subject property, the Revision Petitioners have

been paying tax to the concerned authorities. They have

also obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Special

Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,

Hyderabad vide proceedings No.F-13235/NOC/08

dated 05.08.2008, wherein the said authority held that

they have no objection and have made it clear that the

property is not vested with the Government. The GHMC

has regularized the plots belonging to the revision

petitioners under the LRS Scheme vide proceedings i.e.,

LRS/472/G/CR-1/West Zone/GHMC/ 2008 dated

16.12.2008, LRS/469/G/CR-11/West Zone/GHMC/

2008, dated 24.09.2008, LRS/470/G/CR-11/West

Zone/GHMC/2008 dated 06.10.2008 and

LRS/471/G/CR-11/West Zone/GHMC/2008 dated

24.09.2008. Thus, it is much clear that the Municipal 18 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

authorities have recognized the possession, enjoyment

and title of the revision petitioners over the subject

lands purchased by them. It appears that the revision

petitioners have also obtained electricity connection to the

said property in the year 2008 and have been paying

necessary charges for the same. The revision petitioners

were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said

property without any interruption from anyone since

1995. The Revision Petitioners have earlier filed a suit

for injunction on 05.03.2012 before the VII Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L. B. Nagar

and by an Order dated 07.03.2012 in I.A.No.443 of

2012 in O.S.No.415 of 2012, wherein the Court has

granted an injunction in favour of the Revision

Petitioners. In the said case the respondents have not

contested.

20. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have claimed in their application

for issuance of ORC that they are cultivating the said land

under the inam, however, as per available records, the land was

converted into residential land in the year 2000. Further, the

respondents themselves have sold part of the land as plots

during the year 2008 and thus, the respondents are estopped 19 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

from claiming that they have been cultivating the land in

dispute. A perusal of sale deed bearing document No.6460 of

1997, discloses that the said sale deed was executed on

16.05.1996 by not only Achaiah but also by five others in favour

of Sri K. Ramulu GPA holder representing Smt. M. Hema Latha

Devi. It is the contention of the respondents that the said GPA

was never executed by Sri E.Achaiah and that it was forged and

fabricated. If at all the said document was forged, fabricated

and created for the purpose of snatching the property of

inamdar, there was no necessity to include the names of other

owners apart from E. Achaiah in the said document. A perusal

of GPA bearing document No.341 of 1994, dated 10.02.1994

discloses that E. Achaiah has subscribed his thumb impression.

As per the contention of the respondent Nos.3 to 5, E. Achaiah

passed away 01.01.1995. If at all the respondent Nos.3 to 5

were aggrieved by said transaction, they could have initiated

necessary legal action against the concerned by questioning the

thumb impression on the GPA bearing document No.341 of

1994, dated 10.02.1994 alleging that the said thumb

impression does not belong to E. Achaiah. But there were no

such attempts on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Respondent

Nos.3 to 5 relied upon death certificate of their father

which has shown the date of death as 01.01.1995, 20 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

which is prior to the date of registration of the land by

the power of attorney holder Sri K.Ramulu, Son of K.

Kishtaiah dated 25-10-1995.

21. It is to be noted that Application for Death

Certificate of E.Achaiah was filed on 13.03.2012 and

order to make necessary entries in the Birth and Death

register was passed on 24.03.2012. It creates any

amount of suspicion in the mind of the Court as to

whether the death certificate was fabricated and

created to show that the original pattadar Sri Achaiah

died prior to the date of registration of the land by the

Power of attorney holder, as it appears to be highly

irregular that a death which occurred during 1995 have

been entered into the births and deaths register during

the year 2012. The doubt on the date of death of E.

Achaiah gets stronger when the Panchanama

conducted on 22.08.2011 during the ORC proceedings

stated that E. Achaiah died (14) years ago which will

put his year of death to 1997 and not 1995 as recorded

in the date of birth certificate issued subsequent to the

ORC proceedings. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the Special Grade Deputy 21 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer, West Division

(Chevella) there is a correction with regard to the date

of death of E. Achaiah. It is observed that based on the

non availability certificate, notarized affidavit and the

application submitted by the respondent Nos.3 to 5, the

authorities have arrived to a conclusion that E. Achaiah

expired on 01.01.1995. In fact, there is no conclusive

proof to establish that E. Achaiah expired on

01.01.1995.

22. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were

granted Occupancy Rights Certificate vide Proceedings

No.B/20/2011-06 of the Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre)

Serilingampally Mandal, dated 16.01.2012 claiming that they

are cultivating the subject property and immediately thereafter

i.e., on 21.01.2012 the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have alienated

part of the subject land to third parties. It is observed that

within one week of grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 alienated the property to third parties,

which raises any amount of suspicion on the acts of respondent

Nos.3 to 5 in creating multiplicity of proceedings.

22 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

23. In Kannamma and others V. The Collector, Ranga

Reddy District and others 13, the High Court for the erstwhile

State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the relevant date for

purpose of granting occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 is

01.11.1973 but not 20.07.1955. Thus, it is settled that the

relevant date for the purpose of granting occupancy rights

certificate under the Act is 01.11.1973. A perusal of pahani

patrika for the year 1974-75 discloses that the land in Sy.No.28

is 'Kalva Venuka Polam' and it does not disclose the nature of

land as 'inam land'. Even the pahani patrika for the years

1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 discloses that the land in Sy.No.28

is 'Kalva Venuka Polam' and it does not disclose the nature of

land as 'inam land'. Thus, as on the relevant date i.e.,

01.11.1973 the land is not "inam" even as per the above said

pahani patrikas relied upon by respondent No.12. The

preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, the entries as per sethwar/wasool baki are not

available; the entries as per khasra pahani for the year 1954-55

are in torn condition. In the enquiry report, it was submitted

by the Mandal Revenue Inspector that on verification of the

documents produced by the applicant i.e., pahani for the year

1973-74 in Sy.No.28 is recorded as Harijan Inam in the name of

MANU/AP/0307/1990 23 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Achaiah. But as stated above the pahani patrika for the year

1973-74 in respect of subject land is shown as 'Kunta Venuka

Polam Patta' but not 'Harijan Inam'.

24. This Court is of the considered opinion that the

Respondent No.2 (RDO) and Respondent No.1 have erred in

issuing ORC to the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as there is no

documentary evidence produced or adduced to confirm that Sri

E.Achaiah i.e., the father of respondent Nos.3 to 6, is an

Inamdar. The Respondent Nos.3 to 5 failed to establish

that the schedule land is inam and that Sri Achaiah

was the inamdar within the meaning of the expressions

as defined in Sections 2(1)(c) and (d) of the Inams

Abolition Act. The Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have

basically failed to discharge their burden of establishing

their claim to be the successors of inamdar on the

contrary as per Pahani for the year 1973-74 shows Shri E

Achaiah as pattadar. Hence, the property in question does not

fall under the provisions under The Inam Abolition Act 1955.

25. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners is that no notice was issued to the petitioners before

passing the order, dated 14.12.2011, which is nothing but

violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended 24 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

that the respondent No.1 failed to appreciate that respondent

No.2 failed to conduct any enquiry, make local inspection and to

see that the property is in the hands of third parties and

without putting them on notice ought not to have passed the

order.

26. It is observed that on an application by the father

of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 i.e., E.Achaiah, to

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

(HMDA) seeking issuance of Land Use Certificate,

HMDA vide Lr.No.6505HUDA/1987 dated 06.04.1987

issued Land Use Certificate stating that the subject

land is earmarked for residential use. Further, ULC

authorities have issued NOC to Revision Petitioners

mentioning that the land in question is an urban

vacant land and not an agricultural land. Further, it

has been evidenced that respondents have sold part of

the land under the same survey number as plots/non

agricultural land vide sale deed bearing document

No.6487/2000 dated 11.08.2000. Once it is proved that

the property in question is non agricultural land, then

the same cannot be covered under Inam Abolition Act,

1955. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the 25 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Land Use Certificate, dated 06.04.1987, which was issued with

respect to land in Sy.No.28 of Guttala Begumpet Village was

also confirmed with the entries made in the pahani for the year

1987-88, wherein at column No.32 it was mentioned "plots

khayam" i.e., the lands in Sy.No.28 of Guttala Begumpet Village

were converted into plots.

27. It is further submitted that immediately after conversion

of the subject lands into plots, E. Achaiah through his

registered GPA holder Sri K. Ramulu sold Ac.0.32 guntas in

Sy.No.28 and other neighbouring owners in Sy.Nos.27 and 29

jointed Sri E. Achaiah as vendors to sell their respective extent

of lands, all admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas to Smt. M. Hemalatha

Devi vide registered sale deed bearing document No.10686 of

1995 executed on 25.10.1995. Thereafter, the said E. Achaiah

and other neighbouring owners through their registered GPA

holder Sri K. Ramulu, sold an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas in

Sy.No.27/p, 28/p and 29/p to Smt. Hemalatha Devi vide

registered sale deed bearing document Nos.6460 of 1997 on

16.05.1996. It is alleged that Sri E. Achaiah executed sale

deeds bearing document Nos.622/1987 (plot No.22), 625/11987

(plot No.24) dated 16.05.1987, 765/1987 (plotNo.2), dated

20.06.1987, 1150/1987 (plot No.21), dated 09.09.1987, 1672 of 26 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

1991 (plot Nos.37 and 38), dated 04.09.1991 in favour of K.

Sarojanamma, G. Rangaiah, Y. VeEnkata Lakshmamma, P.

Saradamma, T. Manjula respectively. Thus, the above said

registered sale deeds disclose that the land has been converted

into plots in the year 1987 itself and that too based on the

requisition/application filed by E. Achaiah for issuance of Land

Use Certificate. As rightly contended by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioners, when the lands

were converted into plots in the year 1987 itself, the

ORC application filed by the legal heirs of E. Achaiah in

2011 stating that they were cultivating the lands in

Sy.No.28 of Guttalabegmpet Village in 2011 itself

speaks volumes about the fraud played in this matter.

28. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners that after the death of E. Achaiah, the respondent

Nos.3 to 5 along with others sold plot Nos.14, 30 (p), 35, 37/A

and 38 in H.No.1-65/25/11/A in Sy.No.28 totally admeasuring

420 square yards vide registered Agreement cum GPA bearing

document No.6467 of 2000 dated 10.08.2000 to Sri A. Venkat

Naidu, who executed a registered sale deed bearing document

No.6487 of 2000 dated 11.08.2000 in favour of Smt. P. Vijaya

Lakshmi. Thus, from the above transactions, it is clear that 27 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

respondent Nos.3 to 5 are very well aware about the conversion

of agricultural land into non agricultural land and thereafter

into plots by their father E. Achaiah. Respondent No.1 erred in

holding that the land is an open land vested with the

government, more particularly, when there is ryotwar patta and

also plenty of registered sale deeds in respect of subject property

much prior to issuance of the impugned orders and occupancy

rights certificate. The Mandal Revenue Inspector without

conducting the enquiry in proper perspective and without

ascertaining the existing details of the alienations in respect of

subject land has submitted a false report stating that the land

is an open land vested with the government. The officials could

have easily verified the land records of the said Sy.No.28 and it

would also reflect online about the sale transactions of the

petitioners and thereby could have given notices to the revision

petitioners for objections, if any, on their behalf. The complete

record of land conversion and mutation in the GHMC records

was also purposefully ignored.

29. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners that after 16 years from the sale of subject plots by

E. Achaiah to the vendor of revisions petitioners and after about

11 years from the above referred transaction in the year 2000 28 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

by respondent Nos.3 to 5, the respondent Nos.3 to 8 colluded

together and entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the land

of the revision petitioners herein. That in furtherance of their

criminal conspiracy, they hatched a plan to illegally obtain

Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Inams Abolition Act,

which is considered as title document and fabricated belated

death certificate of E. Achaiah to show that he died on

01.01.1995 itself though he was alive by that date. It is further

contended that the then officers i.e., Mr. N. Vidhya Sagar Reddy

working as Mandal Revenue Inspector by that time, Mr. P.

Ravinder Reddy working as Inam Tribunal Officer/RDO

Chevella by that time, Mr. G. Subba Rao working as Tahsildar

(Deputy Collector Cadre) by that time and his son Dr. G. Naga

Karthik, joined into the criminal conspiracy to illegally misue

their officials positions and in turn respondent Nos.3 to 8 had

promised to transfer valuable extent of land in favour of Dr. G.

Naga Karthik, towards the illegal gratification as reward for the

official acts to be done by them. In furtherance of the criminal

conspiracy, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have transferred a part of

a land in Sy.No.28 admeasuring about 300 square yards in

favour of Dr. G. Naga Karthik under a registered sale deed

bearing document No.752 of 2012, dated 21.01.2012 as a

reward for illegal gratification.

29 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

30. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioners that revision petitioner No.1 filed a private

complaint on 01.06.2022 against respondent Nos.3 to 8 as well

as other government officers for the offences under Sections 7,

8, 9, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Sections 409, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code on the file of learned I Additional Special Judge for Trial of

SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide SR No.1970 of 2022,

wherein the Court has directed the DSP, ACB, Ranga Reddy for

investigation and report. Accordingly, a case in Crime

No.16/RCO-RRR/2022, dated 23.11.2022 was registered

against the accused i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein.

31. It is pertinent to note that the ORC was granted by order

dated 14.12.2011 without the death certificate of late E.

Achaiah and whereas the application for the death certificate of

late E. Achaiah was made on 13.03.2012 by respondent No.5.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted

that in a similar matter with respect to the grant of ORC

on land in Sy.No.29 of Guttalabegumpet Village, Ranga

Reddy District, the Joint Collector has given a finding in

his order stating that all the lands of Guttala Begumpet

Village are patta lands.

30 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

32. That even assuming for a moment, that the subject

land is an inam land, applicants are Inamdars within the

meaning of Section 2(1)(d), still the application cannot be

entertained if there are buildings on the subject property

in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. As per the

evidence on record the property contains buildings. As the

property does not attract provisions of Inam Abolition Act,

1955 and ORC can not be issued by Respondent No.2 and

confirmed by Respondent No.1 which is patently irregular

and the officers in question appears to have colluded with

Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Even the Assistant Government

Pleader has submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2

have played fraud in issuance of Occupancy Rights

Certificate in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and suitable

actions are being taken against them.

33. Therefore, in view of the above discussion this

Court comes to the conclusion that the subject land is not

an Inam land in view of the definition in Section 2(1)(c)

of the Act and as such the Respondent No.2 does not

have jurisdiction to entertain the application for ORC.

Further, the appellate Authority, Respondent No.1 has

erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revision 31 MGP,J Crp_2341_2012

Petitioners vide Case No.F1/782/2012 without

assigning reason. Hence, it can be concluded that the

ORC issued to respondents No.3 to 5 is null and void.

34. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed

and order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the

RespondentNo.1, Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District

in Case No.F1/782/2012 and also the Order dated

14.12.2011 passed by the Respondent No.2, Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy

District in FileNo.L/3509/2011 are hereby set aside.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18.12.2023 AS