Telangana High Court
Gokari Jagdish, R.R.District vs The Dist.Collector, R.R.District And 3 ... on 1 May, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.324 and 325 of 2009
WRIT APPEAL No.324 of 2009
% Dated:01.05.2024
# Mir Sadath Ali, S/o. Basharath Ali,
Aged 68 years, business,
R/o. 12-2-784/G, Rethibowli,
Hyderabad .. Appellant
And
$ The Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District,
At Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao,
learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. M.Srinivas
^ Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. A Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.750 of 2023, dated
03.08.2023
2. (1969) 2 SCC 187
3. (2015) 1 SCC 417
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.324 and 325 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant
in W.A.No.324 of 2009 and respondent No.4 in W.A.No.325
of 2009.
Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.4 in W.A.No.324 of 2009.
Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.No.325 of 2009.
2. Writ Appeal Nos.324 and 325 of 2009 are filed
challenging the common order dated 14.11.2008 passed by
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18038 of 2001 and 2722
of 2005 respectively.
3. Brief facts:
In Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001, writ petitioner
assailed the validity of order, dated 06.08.1994, passed by
Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (respondent No.2) and
confirmed by Joint Collector (respondent No.1) vide order,
dated 31.03.2001, whereby Occupancy Rights Certificate
(for short "ORC") were granted to respondent No.3 in respect
of Ac.3.23 guntas of land in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of
Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3.1. In Writ Petition No.2722 of 2005, the writ petitioner is
respondent No.1 before RDO and the appellant in the appeal
filed before Joint Collector, the writ petition is filed
questioning orders dated 06.08.1994 and 31.03.2001 passed
by RDO and Joint Collector.
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
3.2. For purpose of reference, W.A.No.324 of 2009
(W.P.No.18038 of 2001) is being considered.
3.3. Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition on 13.09.1998
for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 (for short "the Inams Act, 1955") in respect of Ac.6.09
guntas of land comprised in Survey No.468 and Survey
Nos.469, 470 and 471. The claim petition was referred to the
Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Rajendranagar, by RDO for a
report after conducting preliminary enquiry. After obtaining
report from the MRO, RDO held enquiry. Having considered
the respective pleadings of respondent No.3, the appellant
(writ petitioner) and respondent No.4 and on the basis of the
material on record before him, including the statements of the
parties recorded in the enquiry, RDO partly allowed the claim
petition of respondent No.3 and declared that she is entitled
for grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Inams Act, 1955 for
an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
of the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant and respondent No.4 filed separate appeals under
Section 24 of the Inams Act, 1955, which were dismissed by
Joint Collector by a common order dated 31.03.2001. The
appellant and respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition Nos.18038
of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 challenging the said orders.
3.4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by a
common order, dated 14.11.2008, holding that the RDO, after
in-depth consideration of the respective claims of all the three
parties, viz., respondent No.3, the appellant and respondent
No.4, held that respondent No.3 is entitled to be registered as
occupant. The learned Single Judge further held that neither
the appellant nor respondent No.4 could make out any case
warranting Court's interference with the order passed by RDO
as confirmed by Joint Collector. It is this common order,
which is under challenge in the present writ appeals.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
an application without impleading the inamdar is not
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
maintainable and the entire proceedings of RDO are without
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the appellants have
admitted that father of respondent No.4 was a tenant in the
subject lands. It is also submitted that when a question
arises as to whether a person is deemed to be a protected
tenant in respect of land under Section 34 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act, 1950'), the same is to
be decided as per Section 35 of the Tenancy Act, 1950, on an
application made within one year of commencement of Act
and the Tahsildar shall decide the entitlement. It is submitted
that in the event of death of a protected tenant, as per Section
40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 his heir or heirs shall be entitled
to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on
which such protected tenant was holding the land at the time
of his death and the authorities, without deciding the issue,
passed orders. It is also contended that none of the issues
have been properly considered by learned Single Judge and
that proviso to Section 4(1) of the Inams Act, 1955 vide
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
Amendment Act 19 of 1994 was not construed in the proper
perspective and that Section 10 of the Inams Act, 1955 does
not empower to adjudicate the identity of a person or
succession and RDO has acted without jurisdiction. It is
submitted that principles of natural justice were denied and
that the findings of the Inam Tribunal are perverse and
contrary to the law. The learned counsel has concluded the
submissions stating that learned Single Judge ought to have
considered all the grounds before passing the order.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.4 that respondent No.3 claiming ORC
as wife of Vittalaiah through her father-in-law as a tenant is
an incorrect fact and there was no basis or evidence relied or
referred by the RDO to conclude that the respondent No.3
was tenant on the said land. It is further submitted that
Joint Collector granted ORC without deciding on the aspect of
tenancy as required under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act,
1950. It is also submitted that without issuing notice,
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
orders have been passed and the Joint Collector should have
considered Section 6 of the Inams Act, 1955 while passing
the order.
5.1. It is submitted that father-in-law of respondent No.3
was never protected tenant and hence, ORC could not have
been granted in favour of respondent No.3. It is further
submitted that respondent No.3 cannot claim any exclusive
right and has to approach the appropriate Court by way of a
suit for partition. It is also submitted that without there being
an enquiry, without deciding the succession and also the
aspect of tenancy, the orders passed by the authorities
cannot stand the test of scrutiny, and learned Single Judge
has erroneously dismissed the writ petitions upholding the
orders of the revenue authorities. It is submitted that even
though ORC is granted, the subject lands are liable to be
partitioned and lastly it is submitted that a fresh enquiry be
conducted by giving notice and affording an opportunity.
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
5.2. It is submitted that the RDO could not have gone into
the nature of inam land and gave a finding that Survey
Nos.469 to 471 are Makhta lands included in definition of
Inam in Section 2(c) of the Inams Act, 1955 and the Inams
Act, 1955 is a self contained code and that the RDO is
conferred with specific power under Section 10 of the Inams
Act, 1955 to examine the nature and history of lands in
respect of which the claims are made by the inamdar, kabiz-
e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or unprotected
tenant. Section 30 of the Inams Act, 1955 confers the power
to authorize any officer not below the rank of Tahsildar for
the purposes of holding enquiry and therefore, the order
passed by the RDO in deciding the succession or calling for a
report from the MRO and placing reliance on the same to
decide the issue of succession is not valid. It is further stated
that the appellant, having not made a claim for grant of ORC,
claiming that his father was the holder of inam and hence
entitled to grant ORC is taking a contradictory stand that
respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
grant of ORC as the land is a service inam falling outside the
purview of the Inams Act, 1955. The learned counsel has
relied upon the following judgments:
1. Dandu Narahari v. the State of Telangana 1
2. State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghavnath and
Others 2, and
3. N. Padmamma & others v. S. Ramakrishna
Reddy & others 3
6. Heard the learned counsels, perused the record.
Considered the rival submissions. It is evident from the
record that concerned revenue authorities have granted
occupancy rights to respondent No.3 (Gokari Kamalamma
W/o Vittalaiah). The factual matrix of the issues urged
before us have genesis in the orders of the revenue
authorities from 1960s.
7. Gokari Mallaiah, S/o Chennaiah, aggrieved by an order
of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, vide proceedings
A Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.750 of 2023, dated 03.08.2023
(1969) 2 SCC 187
(2015) 1 SCC 417
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
No.A4/919/62, dated 10.03.1967, preferred an appeal before
Joint Collector seeking rectification of entries in the tenancy
register. Tahsildar in his order dated 10.03.1967, held that
Gokari Mallaiah and Gokari Vittalaiah cannot be declared as
protected tenants. Joint Collector in proceedings
No.E4/9463, dated 27.02.1968, held that rectification of
entries in tenancy register can be done by invoking correction
rules by approaching the Deputy Collector and directed the
Tahsildar to peruse the records including tenancy records
and decide whether the case is maintainable or not.
A perusal of the orders passed by authorities in various
proceedings will provide a clear picture of the events
unfolded. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of the
orders passed.
8. Pursuant to directions of Joint Collector dated
27.02.1968, in proceedings No.E4/9463, the Mandal Revenue
Officer (MRO), Rajendranagar, vide order dated 19.08.1989
held as follows:
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
"...Hence it is very clear that Gokari Mallaiah the
father of the petitioner never in possession of lands bearing
Sy.No. 468 to 471. Even as on today and from the perusal
of the Revenue Records right even before 1359 F the name
of Sri Gokari Chennaiah is coming in the records. As
pointed in the earlier judgment by the superior authorities
only Sri Gokari Chennaiah is entitled for Protected Tenant
but not the Gokari Mallaiah. The respondents is in
continuous and un-interrupted - possession over the suit
land, since more than 4 decades Even as on today in the
local enquiry Sri G.Chennaiah is in possession of the suit
lands. The lands are recorded as Mafi-Inams in the
Revenue Records the provisions of 102(c) and (d) clearly
indicates that the lands of Service and Charitable Trusts
are exempted from issue of Tenancy rights. Since the
Government have enacted the legislation 1984 while
aboliting the Service Inam Abolition Act.
Therefore I feel that the request of the both the parties for
declaring as Tenant is not maintainable under Tenancy
Act. The proper forum for the parties is to approach before
Inam Tribunal to get ownership patta rights against the
suit lands according to their possession."
9. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3, Gokari
Kamalamma, W/o. Late Vittalaiah, (respondent before the
MRO, Rajendranagar in proceedings dated 19.08.1989) filed a
claim petition in Form-I on 13.09.1988 for grant of occupancy
rights under the Inams Act, 1955, along with a condone delay
application in the Court of the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, against Gokari Jagadish
& others and Mir Sadath Ali (appellants in Writ Appeals
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
herein). RDO by order dated 06.08.1994 in Proceedings
No.L6193/88, held as follows:
"...As per the extract of protected tenancy register, 1951,
filed by Gokari Jagadesh & Mir Sadath Ali, Survey Nos.468,
469, 470 & 471 of Budvel village were recorded as patta in
the name of Mir Mahmood Ali, but as seen from the extract
of sethwar of Budvel village for the year 1963 obtained from
Assistant Director, Survey and Lands Records, Sy.No.468
is classified as Sarkari and Sy.Nos.469, 470 & 471 as Pan
Maqta. As per xerox copy of certificate of Khasra Pahani,
survey No.468 is classified as patta and stands in the name
of mir Mohmood Shapahadi, the survey Nos.469, 470 and
471 are classified as mafi inam and also stands in the
name of mir Mohmood Sha Pahani. Though the lands are
recorded with different classification of nature
Mafilnam/patta/Panmaqta) in different records, as
observed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, in
Procs.No.D/3786/78 dt: 19-8-1989, the relevant record to
disclose the nature of land is sethwar, according to which
the S.No.468 is classified as Sarkari (means patta) and the
S.Nos.469, 470 & 471 are classified as Panmaqta. The
Respondent No.1 also claimed the S.No.468 as patta and
the other three S.Nos. i.e. 469, 470 & 471 as Inam. Hence
it is asserted that the S.No.468 is a patta land and the
other three S.Nos.469, 470 & 471 are Panmaqta lands. As
per the definitions of words contained in Section (2) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Inam also includes Maqta.
Therefore the lands S.Nos.469, 470 & 471 of Budvel village
alone are inam lands and governed by the provisions of
A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. hence orders
passed in respect of S.Nos.469, 470 & 471."
10. The RDO further held as follows:
"...Against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Rajendranagar, no appeal seems to have been filed by the
parties. As discussed at Issue No.1, above according to the
Sethwar, the S.Nos.469, 470 & 471 are classified as
Panmaqta which is a non-Service Inam and there can be
P.Ts on Non-Service Inam lands, since the Tenancy Act is
not applicable only for Service Inams. As per the Tenancy
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
Register also, still the names of Gokari Chennaiah and
Mallaiah appear as P.Ts. of the suit lands. When once a
declaration is made of P.Ts. in the P.T. Register and unless
it is challenged within one year of its preparation before the
competent authority, no authority has not any power to
correct the entries made in the final Tenancy Record. The
Deputy Collector (R.D.O.) as observed in the orders of the
Jt.Collector in File No. E4/9436/67, dt: 27-2-1968 has
alone got powers to correct only clerical mistakes which
have crept in inconsistent with the enquiries contained in
the preliminary & provisional Tenancy records. It appears
that these aspects were not one through by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar while passing orders. Both
the P.Ts.Gokari Chennaiah and Mallaiah are now dead and
succession of their P.T. rights in favour of their L.Rs has
not been sanctioned by the competent authority. However
for grant of occupancy rights to the P.Ts/Their L.Rs. U/s. 7
of the Abolition of Inams Act, over Inam lands, their
possession and personal cultivation of the lands on the
date of vesting 1-11-1973 is imminent. Therefore, the issue
needs no further explanation."
11. It was also held by the Inams Tribunal-Cum-RDO as
follows:
"... the witnesses examined by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Rajendranagar in presence of both the parties have also
un-equivocally stated that Chennaiah is shown as actual
cultivator of the land. The Respondent No.1 claims that
this Chennaiah is his grand-father, where as the petitioner
claims Chennaiah to be her father-in-law (father of her
husband Vittalaiah). From the papers filed by the parties
which relates to the litigationpending regarding suit lands
since 1951, it can be easily said that Chennaiah (father-in-
law of the petitioners) and Mallaiah father of the
Respondent No.1 were contemporaries and Chennaiah
whose name is recorded as actual cultivator of the suit
lands in the Khasra Pahani could be only father of
Vittalaiah and father-in-law of the petitioner Kamalamma.
Further the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar after
due enquiry, has also reported that the father's name of
Gokari Chennaiah whose name is recorded as occupant of
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
the suit lands in the pahani for the years 1950. 1954,
1954-55, is Pedda Ananthaiah and the said Chennaiah
died about (25) years ago leaving his son Vittalaiah, who
also died at about (5) years ago leaving his widow
Kamalamma, who is not cultivating the suit lands. The
name of Gokari Chennaiah also figures as occupant of the
land in the pahani for the year 1963. In the pahanies for
the years 1967-68, 1979-80, 1985-86 & 1986-87, the name
of Gokari Vittalaiah appears as occupant of the land. In the
pahanies for the years 1973-74, 1975-76 & 1976-77 along
with Gokari Vittalaiah, one Nallamonu Balaiah is shown as
occupant of the land. The son of Balaiah viz., Pentaiah in
his deposition dt: 5-4-1989, in the Tribunal has stated that
the suit lands were being cultivated by Gokari Vittalaiah
and after his death, his wife Kamalamma cultivating the
land. Further he stated that they never cultivated the land
and expressed no objection if occupancy rights are being
granted to the petitioner Kamalamma. The witnesses
examined by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar in
presence of both the parties have also un-equivocally
stated that the suit lands were being cultivated by late
Vittalaiah since a long time and after his death, the
petitioner Kamalamma who is the wife of Vittalaiah is
cultivating the lands. Thus all the records and evidences
placed before me disclose that after the death of
Chennaiah, the original occupant of the suit lands, his son
Vittalaih cultivated the land. The name of Vittalaiah also
figured as occupant of the lands in the pahani for the year
1973-74, which could reveal his possession on the date of
vesting 1-11-1973, which date is confirmed to be the date
of vesting by the Hon'ble High Court in their Division
Bench Judgment in W.A.No.600/87 & Batch, dt: 27-4-
1993.
In view of the discussions in foregoing paras and on
issue Nos. 1 to 3 above, the petitioner herein Smt. Gokari
Kamalamma W/o Vittalaih is entitled for grant of
occupancy rights U/S.8 of the Abolition of Inams Act, in
respect of Inam Lands S.Nos. 469 (0-11), 470 (1-19) & 471
(2-01) total measuring Acs.3-23 gts., situated at Budvel
village, subject to payment of Rs.2,608.00 in the following
Head of Account. In the result the claims and objection
petitions of the Respondent is rejected. "
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
12. Aggrieved by the orders of the RDO dated 06.08.1994 in
Proceedings No.L/6193/88, Mir Sadath Ali S/o Basharath Ali
preferred an appeal under Section 24 of the Inams Act, 1955.
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy in Proceedings
No.F1/7166/94 dated 31.03.2001 held as follows:
"...This finding of the Tahsildar is correct in view of the
provisions envisaged in section 3 of the Inams abolition Act
which states that "As a consequence of the Abolition of
Inams, the pre-existing rights, title and interest of the
inamdar or any person in occupation of the inam lands
stood divested and vested in the State until re-grant is
made.
The lands being inam lands, classified as Pan
Maqta, evident from the entries made in Sethwar, it has to
be examined as to whether the Respondent No.1 i.e. Smt.
Gokari Kamalamma is entitled for grant of Occupancy
Rights.
It is seen from the copy of the Khasra Pahani that
Gokari Chennaiah's name was recorded as Actual
Cultivator in respect of land bearing Sy. Nos.469, 470 and
471 of Budwel village. The appellant Gokari Jagadish
contends that his Grand-Father, Chennaiah was in
possession of the suit lands. There is a dispute in regard to
the identity of Chennaiah and as to which Chennaiah was
in actual possession of the suit lands. The enquiries made
by the Mandal Revenue Officer reveal that Gokari
Chennaiah, Father-in-Law of Respondent No.1 namely
Gokari Kamalamma has been in possession of the said
lands right from the year 1950 and his father's name is
Pedda Anthaiah and the said Chennaiah died about (25)
years back leaving behind Vittalaiah as his lone legal heir
who also died leaving behind his widow, Kamalamma and
she is now cultivating the said lands. The name of Gokari
Chennaiah, is recorded as occupant in the pahanis for the
years 1963. In the pahanis for the years 1967, 1968, 1979-
80, 1985-6 and 1986-97 the name of Gokari Vittalaiah is
recorded as Occupant of the said Lands. In he pahanies for
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
the years 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77 the name of
Gokari Vittalaiah and one Nallamoni Balaiah is recorded as
occupant. The son of Balaiah namely Pentaiah in his
deposition dt.5.4.1989 before the Lower Tribunal has
stated the suit lands were being cultivated by Gokari
Vittalaiah and after his death, his wife Kamalamma is
cultivating the said lands. Further, he has also stated that
neither himself nor his father Balaiah ever cultivated the
said lands and expressed no objection for grant of
occupancy rights in favour of Gokari Kamalamma.
Therefore, it is abundantly evident that the father-in-law of
Respondent NO.1 namely Gokari Chennaiah and Vittalaiah
husband of the Respondent NO.1 i.e. Gokari Kamalamma
were alone in possession of the suit lands on both dates of
vesting i.e. 20.7.1955 and also on 1.11.1973.
The counsel for the appellant Sri K.Prabhakar in his
written arguments has contended that there is no record to
show that Gokari Chennaiah, s/o. Antaiah had obtained
the suit lands on lease from the appellant or his late father,
Meer Basharath Ali, in fact, the lands were leased out to
Gokari Mallaiah and his father Gokari Chennaiah, s/o.
Gokari Papaiah. It is further submitted that the land
bearing Sy. Nos. 469, 470 and 471 situated at Budvel
village are Mafi (Service Inam) lands as per Khasra, as such
the Lower Tribunal had no authority to issue Occupancy
Rights Certificate in favour of Gokari Kamalamma. It is
contended that a person who has a valid right to hold the
land under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act alone is
entitled for Occupancy Certificate, but the alleged long
standing possession of any person do not confer any right
or interest to get Occupancy Certificate.
The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case
(B.Ramender Reddy Vs. Dist. Collector, 1993(2) AN.W.R.
84) has held that while for the abolition of imams and
vesting of the same in the State the date reckoned is
20.7.1955, but for determination of Occupancy Rights the
date reckoned as 1.11.1973.
The counsel for the appellant himself has admitted
in his written arguments that the Respondent i.e. Gokari
Kamalamma, through her late husband and father-in-law
has been in possession of the land since several years.
The Respondents No.1 husband i.e. Gokari
Vittalaiah was in possession of the land bearing Sy. Nos.
469, 470 and 471 of Budwel Village, Rajendranagar
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
Mandal on the date of vesting i.e. 1.11.1973. Therefore, the
Respondent NO.1 alone is entitled for grant of Occupancy
Rights under the Provisions of Inams Abolition Act. The
Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly granted the
Occupancy Rights Certificate in her favour which is total
conformity with the provisions of the Inams Act. There is
nothing illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Lower
Tribunal and does not warrant any interference by this
Court. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed and the orders
of the Lower Court dt.6.8.1994 passed in Proceedings
L/6193/88 are hereby confirmed."
13. From a perusal of the orders of the authorities, it is
observed that the authorities on the basis of evidence,
material on record and on local enquiries, have lucidly held
that respondent No.3 Gokari Kamalamma's W/o Late
Vittalaiah, (Chennaiah is father of Vittalaiah and also father
in law of Kamalamma) was entitled for grant of ORC as they
were cultivating the said lands on the date for determination
of occupancy rights i.e. on 01.11.1973 and the claims of
Appellants i.e., Gokari Jagadish and Sadath Ali S/o.
Basharath Ali were ordered to be rejected.
14. It is trite to extract the relevant portion of the order of
the learned single judge which is as follows:
"Respondent No.2 carefully analyzed the report
submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and considered
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
in detail the statements of various persons recorded during
the enquiry and came to the conclusion that Gokari
Chennaiah, the tenant in occupation of the property, is son
of Pedda Anthaiah and father-in-law of respondent No.3
and not the son of Papaiah as claimed by the petitioner
and respondent No.4. Indeed, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and respondent No.4 have not advanced specific
contentions, and in my view rightly, on the correctness of
the finding of respondent No.2 in this regard because this
being a finding of fact, this Court exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not
reexamine and substitute it s view by reappreciating the
evidence on record even if another view is possible. Though
the learned counsel for respondent No.4 relied on Rule 6 in
support of his contention that even if his client has not
applied for ORC, respondent No.2 ought t o have
considered the claim of respondent No.4 as well and
granted ORC in his favour. I do not find any merit in
this contention, as respondent No.2, after in-depth
consideration of the respective claims of all the
three parties, viz., respondent No.3, the petitioner and
respondent No.4, held that respondent No.3 is entitled
to be registered as the occupant. Even if a formal
application was filed by respondent No.4, that would have
been rejected on the strength of the said finding of
respondent No.2."
15. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proviso
to Section 4(1) of Inams Act, 1955 was inserted by 1994
Amendment Act and though the Statement of Objects and
Reasons expressed the intention of the legislature to exempt
the village service Inams and Inams held by religious and
charitable institutions from abolition, in the face of this
specific proviso introduced by way of the aforementioned
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
proviso, it is not open to the appellant to plead exclusion of
the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to consider grant of ORC
even in respect of Inams held by the institution. The only
limitation placed by the Inams Act, 1955 in respect of such
Inams is that except the institution, no other person is
entitled to be registered as an occupant.
16. We are of the considered opinion that the proviso to
Section 4(1) of the Inams Act, 1955 after amendment has been
considered and has rightly been held by the learned Single
Judge that the respondent No.2 does have the jurisdiction to
consider grant of ORC and we see no infirmity in the same.
This court is not oblivious to the finding that the lands in
Sy.Nos.469, 470 & 471 of Budvel village are inam lands and
governed by the provisions of the Inams Act, 1955.
17. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the
appellant's father was an Inamdar and that Chennaiah F/o.
Mallaiah was cultivating the land. It was also further urged
by appellant that religious/charitable institution is the
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
Inamdar and the RDO's jurisdiction is ousted. The learned
single judge held that in either case, the appellant is not
entitled to the grant of ORC as he does not satisfy the
requirement of being in personal cultivation to claim ORC
under Section 4 of Inams Act, 1955, if his plea as inamdar is
accepted; and in case he not being the inamdar, if the
institution is held to be the inamdar. We see no infirmity in
the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the
appellant is not entitled for grant of ORC.
18. The entire dispute in respect of Gokari Kamalamma and
Gokari Jagadish revolves around as to who has to be granted
the ORC whether it is respondent No.4, Gokari Jagadish S/o
Gokari Mallaiah, claiming through his grand-father
Chennaiah S/o Papaiah or Gokari Kamalamma W/o Gokari
Vittalaiah through her father-in-law i.e., Gokari Chennaiah
S/o Pedda Anthaiah. As observed from the order of the RDO,
basing on enquiry by MRO, the said lands were cultivated by
Gokari Vittalaiah and after his death his wife Kamalamma
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
was cultivating the land. It is also observed from the order
that one Shri Girukala Narayana Goud, aged 90 years
deposed that he had no knowledge about cultivation of land
by Gokari Mallaiah and that Chennaiah father of Vittalaiah
received Haque Malikana. It is also held that lands in
Sy.Nos.469, 470 and 471 of Budvel Village, are inam lands
and that the appellant (Mir Sadath Ali) before Joint Collector
in his written arguments has admitted that Gokari
Kamalamma through her late husband and father-in-law has
been in possession of land since several years. It is also
observed in the order of the Joint Collector that the lands
being inam lands classified as Pan Maqta evident from the
entries in Sethwar. The judgments relied by the learned
counsel for respondent No.4 are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
19. The findings of MRO that "respondent No.3, her
husband and father-in-law are in continuous and
un-interrupted possession over the land, since more than
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
four decades and that even as on today in the local enquiry,
Sri Chennaiah F/o. Vittalaiah is in possession of the said
lands and that the lands are recorded as Mafi-Inams in the
Revenue Records" have been affirmed by RDO and RDO
further held that "all the records and evidences placed before
me disclose that after the death of Chennaiah, the original
occupant of the said lands, his son Vittalaiah cultivated the
land. The name of Vittalaiah also figured as occupant of the
lands in the pahani for the year 1973-74, which could reveal
his possession on the date for determination of occupancy
rights on 1-11-1973, (which date is confirmed to be the date
by the Hon'ble High Court in their Division Bench Judgment
in W.A.No.600 of 1987 & Batch, dated 27-4-1993)". These
findings by the authorities are based on material on record
and are based on enquiry conducted in the village. The
findings cannot be termed as perverse.
20. We are of the view that findings by the authorities and
reasons recorded by them under a statute or by the appellate
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.Nos.324 & 325 OF 2009
authority thereunder do not warrant any interference as there
is no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed.
21. In the result, Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:01.05.2024
KH
