Telangana High Court

T. Madhava Reddy, vs The Joint Collectot, on 18 October, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                       AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                   WRIT APPEAL No.796 of 2016

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble t`he Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. G.Raghupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants.

       Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader

for Revenue for respondents No.1 and 2.

None appears for the unofficial respondents.

2. This intra Court appeal is filed against the common

order dated 10.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.21627 of 2008

by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.11

has been allowed and the order dated 10.07.2007 passed

by the Joint Collector has been set aside. In order to

appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts

need mention which are stated infra.

3. The subject matter of this appeal is the land

measuring Acs.9.00 in Survey No.91 situate in Bowenpally

Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

(hereinafter referred to as, "the subject land"). The

aforesaid land was an inam land and one Ghulam

Moinuddin was said to be the inamdar of the land. The

subject land was purchased by one C.Sathaiah vide sale

deed dated 20.11.1966 after surrender of tenancy rights by

one Vanam Achaiah @ Achi Reddy, who was declared as a

protected tenant of the subject land vide. Thereafter,

C.Chandraiah and his family members were put in

possession of the subject land.

4. Respondents No.3 to 8 in this appeal claim title on

the basis of lease deed dated 08.02.1963 executed in

favour of respondents No.7 and 8. There was a dispute

with regard to possession in respect of the subject land

which led to initiation of the proceeding under Section 145

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Executive

Magistrate found that respondents No.3 to 8 were in

possession of the subject land and the possession was

delivered to them. The order passed by the Executive

Magistrate was assailed in a revision, namely

Crl.R.C.No.310 of 1969. A Bench of this Court by an order

dated 24.04.1970 allowed the revision and held that

C.Chandraiah and his brothers are in possession and are

entitled to possession.

5. Respondents No.7 and 8 filed a suit, namely O.S.No.2

of 1972, seeking the relief of declaration of title and

injunction against C.Chandraiah and others. The aforesaid

suit, vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.1979, was

dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court was affirmed, vide judgment and decree dated

25.04.1986, in an appeal, namely C.C.C.A.No.62 of 1980.

The Letters Patent Appeal, namely L.P.A.No.61 of 1986,

was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in

S.Veera Reddy v. Chetlapalli Chandraiah 1. The order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by

the Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition was

dismissed. Thus, the claim of respondents No.3 to 8 qua

C.Chandraiah attained finality, as their claim seeking relief

of declaration of title and injunction was dismissed.

1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB)

6. One Mustafa Sharief, who is father of respondents

No.3 to 6, claiming to be inamdar of the land initiated

proceeding for resumption of the land. The Revenue

Divisional Officer by an order dated 30.11.1977 directed

resumption of the land in favour of the said Mustafa

Sharief. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated

14.08.1986, also granted occupancy rights in favour of

Mustafa Sharief. Against the order granting occupancy

rights, C.Chandraiah and others filed an appeal before the

Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which was allowed

on 06.04.1988 and the matter was remitted to the Revenue

Divisional Officer for de novo enquiry.

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereafter again

granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.7

and 8. The aforesaid order granting occupancy rights was

challenged in an appeal before the Joint Collector, who by

an order dated 06.12.1988 set aside the order passed by

the Revenue Divisional Officer and again remanded the

matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for de novo

enquiry.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated

22.06.1991 allowed the claim of respondents No.3 to 8.

The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was

confirmed by the Joint Collector by an order dated

09.03.1993. The order passed in appeal was challenged by

C.Chandraiah and others in a revision, namely

C.R.P.No.665 of 1994. The said civil revision petition was

tagged along with L.P.A.No.61 of 1986. A Division Bench of

this Court vide order dated 13.09.1994 set aside the order

of the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer

and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

9. After the remand of the matter by the Division Bench

of this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order

dated 11.07.1996 granted occupancy rights in favour of

C.Chandraiah and his brothers and the claim of

respondents No.3 to 8 was negatived.

10. The aforesaid order was assailed by the appellants

herein in an appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") before the Joint

Collector, who by an order dated 10.07.2007 disposed of

the said appeal by setting aside the order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.07.1996 and by

directing the parties to approach the Special Tribunal for

appropriate remedy.

11. Thereupon, respondent No.11 challenged the

aforesaid order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Joint

Collector in the writ petition, namely W.P.No.21627 of

2008, before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single

Judge by a common order dated 10.06.2016 allowed the

writ petition. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held

that (i) the title of Ghulam Moinuddin, who was vendor of

C.Chandraiah and his brothers, has been affirmed in all

the civil proceedings initiated by respondents No.7 and 8

and the claim of respondents No.7 and 8 for declaration of

title and for grant of perpetual injunction has been

negatived by all the Courts, including the Supreme Court;

(ii) the lease of inam land by the protected tenant in favour

of respondents No.7 and 8 amounts to assignment of his

interest, which is prohibited under Section 30 of the Act,

and is therefore void; (iii) the lease executed by Vanam

Achaiah @ Achi Reddy required registration and the

unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence; (iv) the

appeal by the appellants was filed after a delay of 10 years

without filing any application seeking condonation of delay;

(v) after a period of ten years, when the occupancy rights

were granted in favour of C.Chandraiah and his brothers, it

is not open for the Joint Collector to unsettle the settled

things by relying on Section 9 of the Act and by taking the

status of the land to be a non-agricultural land.

12. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the

order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Joint Collector and

allowed the writ petition.

13. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra Court

appeal has been filed.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that no

notice of the proceeding of the Inams Tribunal which

culminated in the order dated 11.07.1996 was given to the

predecessors in title of the appellants. It is further

submitted that after the order was passed by the Inams

Tribunal on 11.07.1996, the appellants purchased the land

by sale deed dated 12.05.2005. The appellants thereafter

came to know about the order of the Inams Tribunal dated

11.07.1996 and applied for a copy of the order on

07.02.2006, which was served to them on 18.02.2006. The

appellants thereafter filed Appeal within a period of thirty

days from the date of knowledge on 06.03.2006 and

therefore, the same was within limitation. In support of the

aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the

decision of the learned Single Judge in C.R.P.No.3848 of

2018 (M.Ramulamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Malkajgiri), dated 03.06.2019. It is further submitted that

the inamdar of the subject land was one Mustafa Sharief

and respondents 3 to 6 are his sons, who had sold the land

to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, who in turn

sold the land to the appellants on 12.05.2005. It is

therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in

setting aside the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the

Joint Collector and the impugned order is, therefore, liable

to be set aside.

15. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader

has supported the order passed by the learned Single

Judge and has submitted that the Joint Collector has not

dealt with various grounds on which the order was passed

by the Inams Tribunal and without assigning any reasons

a finding has been recorded that the subject land is used

for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the learned Single

Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Joint

Collector.

16. We have considered the rival submissions on both

sides and have perused the record.

17. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeal from orders

under Section 10 to the prescribed authority. It provides

that any aggrieved person by a decision of the Collector

under Section 10, may within thirty days from the date of

decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority

may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed

authority.

18. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v.

R.K.B.K.Limited 2 has held that the order becomes

effective only on the date of its receipt and an

uncommunicated order cannot be challenged. Therefore,

the Supreme Court by applying the principle of purposive

construction of statutes has held that words "from the date

of the order", if the same is construed to mean that the

date of an order, would be date of passing of order, though

not made effective would lead to absurdity. The aforesaid

decision of the Supreme Court was taken note of by the

learned Single Judge in C.R.P.No.3848 of 2018 and the

appeal in that case was also held to be within limitation as

the same was filed within a period of thirty days from the

date of knowledge.

19. In the instant case, from the material available on

record, it is evident that the appellants came to know

about the order of the Inams Tribunal and thereafter, they

(2012) 6 SCC 384

applied for a copy of the order on 07.02.2006, which was

served to them on 18.02.2006. Therefore, the appeal was

filed on 06.03.2006. Thus, the appeal appears to have been

filed within a period of thirty days from the date of

knowledge and therefore, the same is held to be within

limitation.

20. From a perusal of the order of Inams Tribunal dated

11.07.1996, it is evident that it has dealt with rival

contentions and has considered the impact of previous

rounds of litigation between the parties and has recorded

its finding as follows:

Thus, it is clear that Vanam Achi Reddy is not the tenant to Sri Mustafa Sharief. The Revenue Divisional Office of 9-00 Acs said to be held by Sri Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy who are said to have been purchased from P.Ts from Vanam Achaiah Alias Achi Reddy under a lease deed dated 08.02.1963. Sri Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy are going on agitating and claiming occupancy rights certificate under I.A.Act for the said 9-00 Acs. But the various Courts in elaborate processing held that under Sec. 30 of the A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, sub-

lease of the land held by P.T. is prohibited and not accepted the lease deed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.2/72 which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and also Supreme Court and especially the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in L.P.A.No.61/86 the plaintiffs (petitioners 6 and 7 herein) have been found to be not entitled to the possession of the land in question for their own right and that their possession pursuant to the orders of the Court and cultivation done by them therein would to the benefit of the persons who are held entitled to the possession thereof. Thus, it is very clear that Samala Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy has no locus standi on 9-00 Acs. lands in dispute between Samala Veera Reddy, Malla Reddy and Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah is rightful possessor who had been in possession of the land along with Vanam Achaiah alias Achi Reddy subsequently in the year 1966 surrendered his rights to his co-tenant under legal proceedings to the respondents herein as they are in possession form the inception of the tenancy rights in pursuant of the actual inamdars, Sri Gulam Mohiuddin and others who executed registered release deed in favour of Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah and brothers, the respondents herein. Thus, Veera Reddy and Malla Reddy neither PTs nor Non-PTs of

Mustafa Sharief the petitioners No.1 herein and resumption of 2-00 Acs. From out of 9-00 Acs held by Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per LRs Chatlapalli Chandraiah and brothers is not tenable.

It is evident from the judgment in O.S.No.2/72 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and also Supreme Court. In para 76 of the said judgment, it is observed that :

"Apart from the above features, the factum of surrender of tenancy rights by Vanam Achaiah along with Tahsil file No. also finds place in the judgment. Lastly, it is to be seen in the penultimate para of Ex.4-37 that Mustafa Sharief and his sister Raheemunnisa Begum are said to be entitled 14 acres 22 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.91. It is in the evidence of P.W.7, Narayana Reddy that he purchased 10-

       00 Acs. of land in Sy.No.91 from Gulam
       Mohiuddin       (presently            husband       of
       Raheemunnisa          Begum)           and      P.W.8

Peddenti Malla Reddy also testified that he purchased 5-00 Acs. of land along with his younger brother Narsimha Reddy from Mustafa Sharief. Both of

them stated that the aforesaid land from part of sy.No.91 Ex-A-37 lands support to the evidence of P.w.7 with regard to various notices of Sy.No.91 falling of various shareholders and also about Mohd. Suleman one of the inamdars migrated to Pakistan and his share being taken over by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. That apart, Ex.A-37 itself shows that Mustafa Sharief and Raheemunnisa Begum are entitled to 14-22 ½ Acs. only in Sy.No.91. Admittedly, P.W.7 has purchased about 15-00 Acs of land from Mustafa Sharief and Gulam Mohiuddin (husband of Raheemunnisa Begum).

Hence, there is able evidence to show that defendant No.6 Mustafa Sharief and his sister have sold away their share of the entire land and nothing remains for them in Sy.No.91. I am therefore Vaddevani Bhavi, the suit land and that it belongs to Gulam Mohiuddin and brothers.

In view of the above circumstances, the left over resumption land of Mustafa Sharief is restricted to 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bowenpally (Village), Balanagar (Mandal) stands holds good, since neither the PTs nor Non-PTs nor

inamdars were filed any appeals to the extent of 0-

Therefore, Mustafa Sharief died per L.Rs the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for occupancy rights certificate only to the extent of 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

In respect of the petitioners 6 and 7 as held by Hon'ble High Court in LPA No.6/86 and CBP 665/94 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court have no status to claim occupancy rights under Abolition of Inams Act. Accordingly, their claim for occupancy rights certificate in respect of Sy.No.91 to the extent of 7-00 Acs is rejected.

Regarding claims of Chatlapalli Sathaiah died per L.Rs. Chatlapalli Chandraiah, Ramulu and Mallesh, it could be seen that according to the judgment of various Courts, which were ultimately endorsed by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, that the possession held by the petitioner Nos.6 and 7 is illegal and contrary to the law, as they continued in possession by virtue of 145 proceedings and subsequent interim injunction orders in various suits, their possession has to be construed as the possession of respondents herein to the extent of 9-00 Acs in Sy.No.91 as they were in possession to the extent of 9-00 Acs. by virtue of

the release deed executed by the actual inamdars Sri Gulam Mohiuddin and others and P.T. who surrendered his rights to co-tenant Sri Chatlapalli Sathaiah.

Therefore, respondents Sri C.Chandraiah, C.Ramulu and C.Mallesh sons of late Sathaiah are entitled for occupancy rights certificate under Section 4(1)(8) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, by virtue of Release Deed dated 20.11.1966 on payment of premium amount of Rs.1,475/- under the following head of account:

Head of Account

0029 - Land Revenue 01 - Land Revenue 01 - Ryotwari Misc 96 - Net Receipts

21. The aforesaid order passed by the Inams Tribunal

has been set aside by the Joint Collector in an Appeal

under Section 24 of the Act in a casual and cavalier

manner and it has been held as follows:

The appellants are seeking claim in the capacity of bonafide purchasers of the plots/houses bearing No.8-5-210/104 (old No.5-390) in Plot No.104 measuring Acs.222.22 square yards under registered document No.3725/2005 executed in

favour of the petitioner No.1, house bearing No.8-5-

210/99 (old No.5-383) in Plot No.99 measuring 104 square yards under registered document No.4107/2004 executed in favour of the petitioner No.2 and house bearing No.8-5-210/105 (old No.5-

389) in Plot No.105 measuring 194.44 square yards under registered document No.3725/2005 executed in favour of the petitioner No.3 in respect of Sy.No.91 situated at Old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On the other hand, the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents 8 to 10 on the basis of release deed dated 20.11.1966.

The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal has reported vide Lr.No.B/2966/2006 dated 21.02.2007, the ground position in respect of Sy.No.91 of Old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal as under:



1. Houses, Building, Road         -         Acs.52-37 guntas
2. Plots/Open Place               -         2178 square yards
3. Temples                        -         1000 square yards
4. School                         -         600 square yards
5. Theatre                        -         2400 square yards

Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by implication, prescribes issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of non- agricultural lands.

Amplifying the scope of Section 9, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.P.Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District (2004 (5) ALD 644) has held as under:

"The term agricultural or non- agricultural purposes is not defined under the Act. However, for the purpose of Section 9, it is sufficient if the land is put to non-agricultural purposes. The reason or justification is outside this scope of enquiry under the provisions of the act. The Collector will assume jurisdiction to decide the claims under Section 10 only, if the lands were put to agricultural use. Though in Form 1, the relevant date is mentioned as 20-7- 1955, in view of subsequent legislative changes and judicial pronouncements, the crucial date now stands as 1-11-

      1973.    In   Sections     4    and    5,   the
      expression    cultivates       personally    is
      used, whereas in Sections 6, 7 and 8
      the   expression    under      his    personal

cultivation is employed. They constitute the jurisdictional facts, for exercise of power under Section 10 and Inamdar, Kazim-e-kadim or tenant may have an excellent ground or jurisdiction, for not

undertaking activities of cultivation in the inam lands. But once such land is found to be not under cultivation, the Collector ceases to have power to deal with the same under Section 10. Further, the contesting respondents clearly stated that the land is put to non-agricultural purposes.

In its wisdom, the Legislature mandated that the adjudication of the claims in relation to the buildings and non-agricultural inam lands, be, undertaken by a specialized forum, and not by the Collector."

In the instant case, it is evident that the subject land is used for non-agricultural purposes.

Thus, it is clear that grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 4 is not permissible in respect of lands converted to non-agricultural use.

In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division by the impugned order has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of lands covered by structures/plots. The same is without jurisdiction and is therefore ab initio void.

It is not open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers under Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Section 24(2) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 stipulates that if any question arises as to whether "any land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority". Rule 18(2) of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 lay down that for the purpose of Section 24(2), the Special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority. Vide G.O.Ms.No.1613, dated 13.12.1975, District and Sessions Judges are constituted as "Special Tribunals" for the purpose of the Act.

As such, in respect of cases covered by Section 9 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, it is the Special Tribunals, and not Revenue Authorities, which can exercise jurisdiction.

In the instant case, vide the impugned proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer has exercised jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. As such, the impugned proceeding suffers from lack of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

Therefore, the impugned proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in Case No.L/4209/1994 dated 11.07.1996 is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to approach the Special Tribunal for appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

22. The order passed by the Joint Collector suffers from

vice and non-application of mind inasmuch as it has not

dealt with various grounds and various issues which arise

for consideration in the appeal. The order passed by the

Joint Collector is cryptic and therefore, on this ground

alone, the order passed by the Joint Collector cannot be

sustained in the eye of law.

23. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the learned

Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to the Joint

Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Therefore, it is directed that the Joint Collector shall decide