Telangana High Court

D. Narsimha Rao, Mbnr. Dist. vs Jt. Collector, Mbnr Dist. 2 Ors. on 15 February, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                            AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                          + W.A.No.512 of 2012
                              % Date: 15-02-2023

Between:

# D.Narsimha Rao, S/o. Balkishan Rao,
 Occ: Govt. Service, r/o Nagerkurnool Mandal
 Mahaboobnagar District
                                                             ... Appellant
              v.

$ Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District,
 Mahabubnagar and others
                                                          ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant       : Mr. A.Narasimha Rao

^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, GP for Revenue


< GIST:

      HEAD NOTE:
 ? CASES REFERRED:
       ----

::2::

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.A.No.512 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

Heard Mr. A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment

and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge

disposing of W.P.No.19254 of 2002 filed by the appellant as the

writ petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing

the legality and validity of the order dated 17.07.1999 passed by

respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar.

4. The dispute pertains to Ac.0.11 guntas of land situated in

Survey No.333 of Nagerkurnool in Mahabubnagar District

(briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter).

::3::

5. One D.Srinivas Rao was the inamdar of the subject land;

through him, appellant had acquired title and possession of the

subject land by way of succession. In this connection, Revenue

Divisional Officer, Nagerkurnool (respondent No.2) had by way

of proceedings dated 20.01.1978 granted Occupancy Right

Certificate (ORC) in favour of the appellant as per Section 4 of

the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams

Act, 1955 (briefly 'Abolition of Inams Act' hereinafter) read with

Rule 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of

Inams Rules, 1975 (briefly 'Abolition of Inams Rules'

hereinafter).

6. After nineteen years of grant of ORC, Mandal Revenue

Officer of Nagerkurnool i.e., respondent No.3 preferred appeal

before the Joint Collector (respondent No.1) under Section 24(1)

of the Abolition of Inams Act against the order

dated 20.01.1978. By the impugned order dated 17.07.1999,

Joint Collector condoned the delay in filing the appeal and

thereafter set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer ::4::

dated 20.01.1978 in respect of the subject land holding the same

to be not an inam land. This order came to be challenged by the

appellant before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19254

of 2002.

7. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 14.11.2011 set

aside the order dated 17.07.1999 as well as the ORC

dated 20.01.1978 and remanded the matter back to the Joint

Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law and till such

time to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of

the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2011 passed in

W.P.No.19254 of 2002, petitioner has filed the present appeal.

8. We may mention that respondents have not assailed

certain findings recorded by the learned Single Judge by way of

writ appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention

of the Court to various contours of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge and submits that there was no justification ::5::

for condoning the delay of nineteen years by the learned Single

Judge by first construing the delay to be of four years and then

holding that the said delay could not be held to have been caused

due to deliberate inaction. Learned Single Judge had recorded as

a finding of fact that the subject land is an inam land and that

one Srinivasa Rao Deshpande, the great grandfather of the

appellant was the inamdar. Learned Single Judge also held that

there was no material before the Joint Collector to have set aside

the ORC. Having held so, learned Single Judge herself

proceeded to set aside the ORC.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the

ORC at page 26 of the paper book which contains two plots of

land; one in survey No.369; the other in Survey No.333, which is

the subject land. In so far the other portion of the land in

Survey No.369 is concerned, the ORC granted in favour of the

successors of the inamdar has been affirmed by this Court vide

the judgment and order dated 09.11.2005 passed in W.A.No.321

of 2001 and batch. Special Leave Petition filed against the ::6::

aforesaid decision of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme

Court. He therefore, submits that order of the learned Single

Judge, which is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, is

liable to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue submits that there are number

of government buildings on the subject land including munsif

court building; therefore, no ORC could have been granted to

the appellant in respect of the subject land. He submits that

learned Single Judge has only passed an order of remand to the

Joint Collector; therefore, instead of pursuing the appeal,

appellant should be relegated to the forum of the Joint

Collector.

11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have

received the due consideration of the Court.

12. There is no dispute to the fact that appellant was granted

ORC by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagerkurnool ::7::

on 20.01.1978; appeal came to be filed in the year 1997

i.e., 19 years thereafter. Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act

deals with appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed

authority. As per Section 10, Collector is required to examine

the nature and history of all lands in respect of which an

inamdar etc., claims to be registered as an occupant under

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as the case may be and thereafter decide in

whose favour and in respect of which inam lands, the claims

should be allowed etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 24, any

person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under Section 10

of the Abolition of Inams Act may within thirty days from the

date of the decision or such further time as may be allowed, file

appeal provided sufficient cause is shown.

13. From a perusal of the order dated 17.07.1999 passed by

the Joint Collector, it is evident that he had exercised power

under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act. Before we

deal with the reasons given by the Joint Collector in condoning

the delay of nineteen years, we may mention that the appeal ::8::

before the Joint Collector under Section 24 of the Abolition of

Inams Act was filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Nagerkurnool. Mandal Revenue Officer is an officer junior in

hierarchy to the Revenue Divisional Officer. As a matter of

fact, Revenue Divisional Officer had exercised powers under

Section 10 of the Abolition of Inams Act on behalf of the

Collector. Now, the question is whether a subordinate officer

can challenge the order of a superior officer in appeal before an

authority, which is still subordinate to the authority on whose

behalf the power was exercised by the Revenue Divisional

Officer ? Related to the above, the further question would be

whether the Mandal Revenue Officer can be construed to be 'any

person' within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 24 and

whether he was competent/authorized to file such an appeal or

he had filed such an appeal on his own.

14. However, examination of the above question(s) may not

be necessary in view of the discussions hereinbelow.

::9::

15. Adverting to the ORC dated 20.01.1978 issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagerkurnool, we find that a copy

of the same was marked to the Tahsildar, Nagerkurnool

nomenclature of which authority was subsequently changed to

Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, the Mandal Revenue

Officer could not have taken the plea that he was unaware of the

ORC for nineteen long years. Joint Collector adopted a strange

reasoning by observing that when the State is in appeal,

considerable delay in filing appeal is a common feature.

Therefore, the delay should be condoned and accordingly delay

was condoned. First and foremost, a Mandal Revenue Officer

cannot be said to be the State. He cannot file and maintain an

appeal as a State. Secondly, the State cannot file an appeal

before a Joint Collector.

16. Learned Single Judge however held that respondents could

come to know about the ORC only in the year 1993 when the

appellant got the entries made in the revenue record. On that

basis, learned Single Judge held that there was a delay of about ::10::

four years in preferring the appeal. Learned Single Judge further

held that the said delay of four years could not be said to be on

account of deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents and

therefore, Joint Collector had not committed any error in

condoning the delay.

17. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to the line of reasoning

adopted by the learned Single Judge. The Mandal Revenue

Officer, who had filed the appeal, is the custodian of the revenue

records. For him to say that he had no knowledge about any

entries made in the revenue records maintained by him cannot

be accepted at all. As already noted, a copy of the ORC was

furnished to the Mandal Revenue Officer (then known as

Tahsildar). There was no justifiable reason at all and no

sufficient cause for the Mandal Revenue Officer to file the

appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, nineteen

years after issuance of ORC even assuming that he could have

filed the appeal.

18. On merit, learned Single Judge held as follows:

::11::

In the present case, even according to the respondents the land in question is an inam land. It is also not in dispute that one Srinivasa Rao Deshpande was the inamdar. The petitioner claims that the said inamdar is his paternal great grandfather and that he acquired title and possession by way of succession. Though the fact that the land is situated in the midst of village has not been disputed by the petitioner, it is his case that the pahani patrikas right from the year 1973 contained the name of the inamdar. Thus according to the petitioner there is no substance in the contention that it is the Government land and that the 1st respondent failed to properly appreciate the material produced by the petitioner. On a perusal of the copies of the pahani patrikas placed before this Court, it appears to me that the observation of the 1st respondent that there is no material to establish the possession of the petitioner is without any basis. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought not have set aside the ORC, but it would have been appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to hold a de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders with regard to the petitioner's claim for ORC.

::12::

19. Thus, learned Single Judge held that it is undisputed that

the subject land is an inam land and that Srinivasa Rao

Deshpande was the inamdar. Appellant claims to be the great

grandson of the inamdar. Learned Single Judge agreed with the

contention of the appellant and observed that it was not justified

on the part of the Joint Collector to say that there were no

materials to establish possession of the appellant and that such a

conclusion was without any basis. Therefore, Joint Collector

ought not to have set aside the ORC. If this is the finding of

the learned Single Judge, we fail to understand as to how learned

Single Judge herself could have set aside the ORC