K.Ramachandra Reddy, vs A.Surender,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2662 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2662 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2023

Telangana High Court

K.Ramachandra Reddy, vs A.Surender, on 23 September, 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.1385 of 2008

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel appears for

the appellants.


       Mr. Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel represents

Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial

respondents.

Mr. Allam Ramesh, learned counsel appears for learned

Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents.

2. This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated

23.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.23962 of 2001.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

4. Taking into account the fact that the issue involved in

this appeal has been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in

Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, CJ & NVSK, J

Mahabubnagar District v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and

others 1, it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts.

5. There were conflicting views taken by two Division

Benches of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others v. The

District Collector, Hyderabad District and others 2 and S. Veera

Reddy and another v. Chettapalli Chandraiah and others 3. In

view of aforesaid conflicting two Division Bench decisions of

this Court, a Full Bench was constituted which answered the

reference in Executive Officer, Group of Temples,

Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (supra) para No.58 of

which reads as follows:

58. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as

under:

(1) The law laid down in S. Veera Reddy's case (supra), is not correct having regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act. We agree with the law laid down in B. Ramender Reddy's case (supra), as correct and overrule the decision in S. Veera Reddy's case (supra).

(2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor- in-interest and cannot apply for ORC.

(3) Only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land can apply to get ORC.

(4) The decision in Kodithala Keshavulu's case (supra), does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. For that matter, all the decisions

2023(1) ALT 83 (F.B.)

1993(2) An. WR 84 (DB)

1994 SCC OnLine AP 510 CJ & NVSK, J

of learned Single Judges and the Division Benches which have taken contrary view stands overruled.

(5) We make it clear that an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant can acquire saleable interest only after they obtain ORC and cannot create third party rights and/or interest in any other person before obtaining ORC.

6. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in

consonance with the reference answered by the Full Bench of

this Court in Executive Officer, Group of Temples,

Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (supra). Therefore, the

order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in

Writ Petition No.23962 of 2001 does not call for any

interference.

7. At this stage, it is pointed out that against the order

passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Executive Officer,

Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District

(supra), Special Leave Petition Nos.24214-24215 of 2022 have

been preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court in which an