HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

WRIT PETITION Nos.28720 of 2008 and 9027 of 2009

WRIT PETITION NO: 28720 OF 2008

Between:

• 1. K.Chandra Prakash, S/o.Kisthaiah Business R/o.Block C-16, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01.
• 2. Smt.K.Aruna, W/o.K.Chandra Prakash Business R/o.Block C-16, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01.

...PETITIONERS

$\mathbf{I}$

AND

• 1. The Joint Collector, Rangareddy District at Lakdikapool.
• 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District at Attapur.
• 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 4. Sri Jangaiah, S/o.Gandaiah R/o.Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 5. Sri. Devaiah, S/o.Gandaiah R/o.Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 6. Sri Chowdaiah, S/o.Late Veeraiah, R/o.Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 7. Sri Yadaiah, S/o.Late Veeraiah, R/o.Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 8. Sri Narsimha, S/o.Late Lingaiah, R/o.Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent in file No.F1/1279/2006 dated 06.12.2008, and as well as the order of the 2nd Respondent in file No.1/4078/2005 dated 27.01.2006 and the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 08.02.2006 issued in favour of Respondent No.4 to 8 and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the application of the writ petitioners for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, being 'successors-in-interest' in respect of Sy.No.57 Adm. 0-39 gts, and Sy.No.58 Adm. 2-09gts, Sy.No.59 adm acres 2-00gts. total admeasuring 5-08gts. situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal in R.R. District.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S. NIRANJAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. A. VENKATESH

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8: SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 9027 OF 2009

Between:

AND

• 1. K. Chandra Prakash, S/o. Kisthaiah Business R/o. Block C-16, Mayur Kushal Complex Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01. K. Aruna, W/o. K. Chandra Prakash Business R/o. Block C-16, Mayur Kushal
• Complex Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01.

...PETITIONERS

• 1. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District at Athapur. Samala Surender Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reddy R/o. Flat No.302, Bhavyas Krishna Residency, Hyderabad.
• 4. Jangaiah, S/o. Gandaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 5. Devaiah, S/o. Gandaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 6. Chowdaiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 7. Yadaiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 8. Narsimha, S/o. Late Lingaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent passed in file No.B1/1812/2008 dated 17.12.2008 by declaring as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and nonest in the eye of law, along with the affect of effecting any changes by amending in ROR Register of Kokapet Village and any changes in pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect of Sy.No.57 Adm. 0.29.35 gts, and Sy.No.58 Adm. 1-26.75 gts, Sy.No.59 Adm. acres 1-20 gts. total admeasuring 3-35 gts. situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

WVMP. NO: 3060 OF 2009

Between:

Samala Surender Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reddy, R/o. Flat No.302, Bhavyas Krishna Residency, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3/Respondent No.3

AND

• 1 K. Chandra Prakash, S/o. Kisthaiah Business R/o. Block C-16, Mayur Kushal Complex Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01.
• 2 K. Aruna, W/o. K. Chandra Prakash Business R/o. Block C-16, Mayur Kushal Complex Abids Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-01.

....Respondents/Petitioners/Petitioners

• 3 The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District at Athapur. $\overline{4}$ Jangaiah, S/o. Gandaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. $\mathsf{S}$
• District. 6 Devaiah, S/o. Gandaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.
• District.

$||3||$

Chowdaiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, $\overline{7}$ R.R. District.

$-$

• 8 Yadaiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
• 9 Narsimha, S/o. Late Lingaiah R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.

$(RR 5 to 9 are not necessary)$

...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

A

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 29-4-2009 in WPMP No. 11803/2009 in W.P.No.9027/2009.

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. A. VENKATESH

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8: NONE APPEARED

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY W.P. N os.28720 OF 2OO8 and 9027 0F 2009 COMMON ORDER:

/ I

I

*_*-_

I +--

Since the subject lands and parties to both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

W.P. No.2872O of 2008 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District in file No.FI I 127912006, clated 06.12.2OO8, as well as the order passed b-1' the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, in file No,LlaO7Bl2O05 dated 27.01.2006 and the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated Oa.O2.2OO6 granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 and consequently to direct the RDO to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of ORC in their favour in respect of the land in survey No.57 admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Acs.2-09 guntas, survey No.59 admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas, total extent of Ac.5.08 gts., situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

W.P. No.9O27 of 2OO9 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed b1, the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar in file No.Bl/ l8I2l2OO8 dated 17,12.2008 along with the consequential changes by amending in ROR register of Kokapet Village and any changes in pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect of land in survey No.57 admeasuring Ac.0-29.35 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Ac.7-26.75 guntas, and in survey No.S9 admeasuring Ac. 1-20

guntas, totally admeasuring Acs.3-35 guntas, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

As against the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, ordering to effect the name of one Samala Sunder Reddy, who claims to have purchased the subject lands from the unofficial respondents under Relinquishment and Release document Nos.1909/2006 and 2843/2008, the writ petitioners have filed W.P.No.9027 of 2009.

The case of the writ petitions, in brief, is that originally the subject lands are the registered patta lands of Gandaiah, Veeraiah, Lingaiah and Pentaiah. During the life time of Gandaiah and Pentaiah, they along with the Chowdaiah S/o.late Veeraiah and Smt.Venkatamma W/o.late Veeraiah and Narsimha S/o.Lingaiah bearing document have executed registered sale deeds Nos.3659/1987 and 3658/1987 dated 08.05.1987 in favour of the vendors of the petitioners herein and possession was also delivered to them. Subsequently, the petitioners have purchased the subject registered deeds bearing document lands under sale Nos.10957/1989 dated 14.09.1989 and 11019/1989 dated 16.09.1989 and their names were also incorporated in the revenue records vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 06.12.1991, and since the date of purchase, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. In the year 2000, petitioners got surveyed the schedule lands through Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, who fixed the peg stores by demarcating the boundaries with meters and bounds under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, petitioners have constructed a

compound wall around the subject lands and a labour room therein after obtaining necessary approval from the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners entered into a development agreement_ cum-irrevocable GPA vide registered document No. l S44g/ 2OO5 dated l4.1O.2OOS for developing the property. While things stood thus, the petitioners came to know that the subject lands were shou'n as Mafi inam in the khasra pahani for the year l9S4_55, which attract the provisions of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (,the Act,, for short). When the petitioners have questioned the unofficial respondents for not informing the nature of land, at the time of purchase, they have given statements before the RDO on 2 t. 1 L2006 expressing no_ objection for issuance of ORC and pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners herein. In spite of saying so, the unofficial respondents have submitted a separate application in Form No.1 before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar for issuance of ORC in their favour. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of admitting the physical possession of the petitioners and implementation of their names in the revenue records, the RDO issued ORC in favour ol the unofficial respondents and in appeal the same rvas confirmed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar. Assailing rhe same, the petitioners have filed W.p. No.2g72O of 2008.

In W.P. No.28Z2O ol 20Og, a counter has been filed mainly contending that when the land in question itself is a.n Inam land, the sale deeds executed in favour of the vendors of the petitioners the reason that before obtaining ORC the right to Mere getting the land surveyed through *- are void for transler g'ill not accrue

J

/.

I

W.P.N0s.28720/2008 & s027/2009

the Deputy Inspcctor oi Survey, oblaining approval front Grampanchayat for construction o[ compound wall c-rbtalning loan and creation of mo|tgage r't'ill not create or vest any right/ title ill favour of the writ petitioners. Tire averntent made in the writ pctition that these respondents have given a statement before the RDO on 2l.ll.2006 requesting to issue ORC in favour of the writ petitioners was denied. After conducting a detailed enquiry and taking into consideration the possession, as oll the date of vesting for issuance of ORC i.e. 01.11''1973, the authorities have issued the ORC. Hence, the transactions made prioi' to issuance of ORC arevoidandnonestintheeyeoflaw'Hence'itisprayedto dismiss the writ Petition.

ln W.P. No.9O27 of 2009, a counter affidavit has been filed denying the material averments made in the writ petition and stating that as against the impugned order' daled l7' 12 2008' thc pctitioners have initialed tu'o parallel proceedings i e" an appeal before the RDO under Section 5 (5) of the Record of Rights in Land andPattadarPassBooksAct,lgTl(forshort'theRORAct)and another is the present writ petition, which is impermissible and there cannot be two parallel proceedings questioning the very same order. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel' appearing on behalf of Sri A.Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the learned Government Pieader for Revenue for official respondents, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao' iearned Senior Counsel, and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Serrior Couuscl'

appearing on behalf of Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel, for the unolficial respondents. Perused the record.

The admitted facts are that the subject lands are mafi inam lands. The petitioners herein have purchased the subject properry undcr registered sale deed, dated, 14,09.1989 document No. 1O957 of 1989 from Nagesh Pramod Shinde & Harshal Pramod Shinde; and another registered sale deed, dated 16.09.1989 vide document No. 11019 of 1989 from Mrs. Deoyani P. Shinde & Dr. P.S. Shinde, who in turn had purchased the subject property under registered sale deed, dated 08.05.1987 vide document No. 3658 of 1987 and registered sale deed, dated 08.05.1987 vide document No. 3659 of 1987 from (i) R. Gandaiah (father of respondent Nos.4 & 5); (ii) R. Pentaiah; (iii) R. Sodiah (Respondent No. 6); (iv) R. Narsimha (Respondent No. 8); (v) Venkatamma (mother of respondent Nos. 6 & 7). Challenging the grant of ORC by the Revenue Divisional Officer in favour of thc unofficial respondents, the petitioners herein have fi.led a statutory appeal provided under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, and the Joint Collector vide order, dated 06. l2.2OO8 ln File No. Fl/1279 /2006, has dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the RDO and the Tahasildar.

The RDO after recording a finding that the petitioners are not in personal possession/ cultivation of the subject lanrl as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973, has recognized the legal heirs of the original Inamdars and granted ORC in their favour while negativing the contentions of the petitioners that they are the *-successors-in-interest of the original lnamdars. The said linding

I

5

has been confirmed by the Joint Collector vide order, dated The Joint Collector while elaborately discussing 06.12.2008. various provisions of the Act has categorically held that the petitioners cannot be granted ORC on the ground that they were not in personal cultivation/physical possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 and that the alienation in their favour by the Inamdars or their successions in interest is not valid, as the original Inamdars or the vendors of the petitioners did not have any ORC in their favour at the time of execution of sale deed and that the sale is after the lands have vested with the State.

For better appreciation and for the purpose of deciding the case on hand, it is relevant to extract sub-sections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (j) of Section 2(1) and other relevant provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').

Section 2 of the Act deals with 'Definitions' and sub-section (1) says that in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

$(a)$ xxx

(b) the expression 'date of vesting' when used -

(i) in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) with reference to clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 and in Section 34, means the date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette:

(ii) elsewhere in this Act means the date appointed by the Government under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1;

(c) 'inam' means land held under a gift or grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent arantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the village records and includes -

(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and

(ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records;

Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas, the expression inam shall not include such lands as have not been recognised as imams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs.

(d) 'inamdar' means a person holding an inam or a share therein, either for his own benefit or in trust and includes the successor in interest of an inamdar, and -

(i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot, his lawful guardian;

(ii) where an inamdar is a Joint Hindu family, such Joint Hindu family.

(e) 'kabize'e'khadim' means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue.

(g) non-protected tenant' means a tenant other than a permanent tenant or a 'protected tenant'.

(h) 'permanent tenant' means a person who, from a date prior to $10^th$ June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement.

(j) protected tenant' means the protected tenant as defined in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950).

That by virtue of Section 3, all the inams stood abolished except those that were saved expressly as provided under this Act. For the purpose of granting ORC, the following persons envisaged under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 i.e., Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants, and non-protected tenants, were recognized as being eligible for the grant of ORC under the Act. Section 9 deals with vesting of lands, on which buildings are there, in the persons who owned it immediately before the date of abolition. Section 10 grants powers of the Collector to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 are eligible to be registered as occupants. For the purpose of deciding the present case, the other provisions are not necessary to be extracted.

A reading of the above provisions clearly sets out that the persons who are envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act alone are eligible for grant of ORC. The only condition precedent for grant of ORC to the persons enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 is that they should be in personal cultivation/possession of the said land as on the date of vesting. For the purpose of granting ORC, the date of vesting has been held to be 01.11.1973 by a catena of decisions of this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Laxman Ambaji¹, a learned Single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in Smt. Kannamma v. District Collector, Rangareddy², has held the date of vesting as 01.11.1973 for the purpose of granting ORC. This decision has also been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in N. Sudershan Reddy v. Smt. Kannamma (deceased by LRs)³. Another Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in B. Ramender Reddy v. District Collector⁴, at para 55, has held as under:

"From the above, it follows that the relevant date for the purpose of recognizing the occupancy rights under Section 4 to 8 of the Act is 1.11.1973. If, on that date, either the inamdar or the different categories of tenants are in possession of the land, they would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. On the facts of the present case, the Collector found that neither the successors-ininterest of the inamdar nor the so called purchasers from the original inamdar were in possession of the inam lands, even as on 20.07.1955. Therefore, the question of they being in possession of the inam property as on 011.1.1973 does not arise. Consequently, the are not entitled for grant of occupancy rights under Section 4 of the Act."

This view has consistently been upheld by all the later judgments. A reading of the above decisions rendered by this Court clearly holds that the date of vesting for the purpose of granting ORC is 01.11.1973 and the said date of vesting holds good till date.

• AIR 1971 SC 1859
• ² 1990 (1) An.W.R.722
• ³ AIR 1994 AP 116
• ⁴ (1993(2) An.W.R. 84)

That insofar as the eligibility of the persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act for grant of ORC is twofold. Firstly, that person should fit into anyone of the five categories of persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act i.e., he should either be an Inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant, or non-protected tenant. Secondly, that person should be in personal cultivation/possession of the said lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. This Court in S. Narasimha v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District⁵ has held that a person who is in occupation and possession of the inam lands as on 01.11.1973 could be entitled to the benefits of the Act subject to its condition. A Division Bench of this Court in G. Venkat Ram Reddy v. Najeebunnisa⁶, has held at para 29 as under:

".......... The Act is a beneficial legislation. 20^th July, 1955 is the date on which all imams to which the Act apply stood vested in the State whereas under the Act the relevant date for obtaining occupancy rights is 1^st November, 1973 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Inamdars or tenants in possession of the land as on 1^st November, 1973 became entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. Irrespective of the order passed by the Nazim Atiyat, the question of the grant of occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 has to be decided by the Collector holding an inquiry as provided under Section 10 of the Inam Act. Notwithstanding abolition of the imams on 20.7.1955 and vesting of the imams in the State, rights of the inamdars or the tenants are not extinguished provided they were in possession of the land as on the relevant date, namely, 1^st November, 1973, on which date the rest of the provisions of the Act were brought into force."

Another Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District7 has held that right to get occupancy rights is not co-related to the vesting of imams in the Government. Therefore, even though all the imams vested in State as on 20th July, 1955, in case the inamdars or various types of persons, mentioned in Sections 5, 6,

^&lt;sup>5</sup> 2006 (3) ALT 84

^{2005 (3)} ALT 313 (D.B.)

^{1993 (2)} An.W.R. 84 (DB)

7 ar-rd 8, were in possession of the land as on 01 . 1 1 . 1973, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act.

Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners have purchased the land in the year 1987 and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that they are in personal possession of the subject lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. The learned Counsel has argued that the definitlon of Inamdar as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act includes the successor- in - in terest and it would include any person who has purchased the subject lands from tl-re original inamdar or any other pcrson claiming under thcrn to be entitled to ORC. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in K. Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Government of A.P.8, and S. Veera Reddy v, Ch,Chandraiahe to buttress this argument. But, a perusal of these two decisions would reveal that the facts therein are different from the facts in this particular case. In both the above decisions, the purchasers had purchased the subject lands between the date of abolition of the Inam i.e. 20.7.1955, and the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. In both these cases, this Court in the light of the peculiar facts of the cases has held that the successor in interest include persons who have purchased the land after the abolition of the lands but prior to Lhc date of vesting i.e., ⁰1 . 1 | .197 3 and therefore they would bo entitled to grant of ORC. The Division Bench in S. Veera Reddy (supra) held that in an enquiry contemplated under Section ¹⁰ regarding the claims of the inamdars, Kabize-e-khadim, protected tenant and non-protected tenant for being registered as occupants,

' 1928 (1)APLJ (HC) 378 1 ' 199s (21 ALT 172 (D.B.l

will have to be satisfied that (i) the lands in question were under the personal cultivation of the claimant; and (ii) together with any land owned and cultivated by him separately, are equal to our and a half times for the family holding. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners herein have purchased the lands in 19g7, the above two decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are of no help and the said decisions are not applicable to facts of these cases. Moreover, in N. Sudershan Reddy (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has overruled both the judgments of the learned Single Judge rendered in K. Kodithala Keshavulu (supra) and also the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in S. Veera Reddy (supra).

Another point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the definit ion of Inamdar provided under Section 2(d) of the Act, the word ,Inamdar, includes the successors-in-interest and that the successors_in_interest can be purchasers and that it need not be confined only to mean the legal heirs of the Inamdar. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions reported in K, Kodithala Keshavulu (supra) and S. Veera Reddy (supra). As discussed in the preceding para, this Court in N. Sudershan Reddy (supra) has overrnled the iaw laid down in both the cases and therefore, the reliance placed b1. the learned counsel for the petitioners in those two cases is misplaced and of no helpfur to the case of the petitioners. A learned Single Judge of this Court in s'Narasimha (supra) while negativing the contention of the revision petitioners, who claimed to be the purchasers of the inam lands aftengBg has held that they cannot be granted ORC as they

t

W.P.Nos.28720/2008 & 9027/2009

do not meet the requirement of law that they should be personal cultivation/possession of the subject land as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. In another decision in Chama Narasimha Reddy

v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad¹⁰, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the purchasers of the inam lands, after the date of abolition, cannot be granted ORC. The learned Single Judge, on the point, whether the purchasers from Inamdars are entitled for ORC, at para 25, has observed as under:-

"25. Reading of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 read with 10 of Inams Abolition Act would show that so as to be registered as occupant of agricultural inam land, different categories of persons have to show that as on the date of vesting they were in possession of such land in whatever capacity they claim. The Inams Abolition Act abolished inams with effect from 20.7.1955 and the Government declared 1.11.1973 as the date of vesting for the purpose of Sections 4 to 8. Therefore, though all the inams stood abolished and the land vested in the State is free from encumbrances with effect from 20.7.1955, all the persons who were in possession of the land as on 1.11.1973 are entitled for ORC. If a person claims to be successor in interest of inamdar by reason of a sale after 20.7.1955, such sale cannot be recognized for the simple reason that from that date, the land vested in the State and all rights to inam land stood abolished. The inamdar had therefore no right to transfer the property to a third party after 20.7.1955 when he became incompetent to transfer the property."

As observed above, the Act not only envisages grant of ORC in favour of only the persons who are enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act but also that they should be in personal cultivation/possession of the subject lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. Unless and until the person meets these two criterion, the ORC cannot be issued.

In view of the above mentioned facts and the law laid down by this Court, the writ petition No. 28720 of 2008 has to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioners do not meet the twin requirements of being personal cultivation/possession of the ¹⁰ (2007) 3 ALT 265

subject land as on 0l ..1 1. 1973 and also that they do not lit into the categories of persons envisaged under Section 4 to g of the Act. That insofar as the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benellts of Section 43 of the Transfer of property Act is concerned, in view of the rival claims made under different registered sale deeds, the question as to whose sale is valid or not can only be gone into by petitioners to approach the Civil Court and seek their remedies under civil law. But, the quasi-judicial officer cannot go into the question as to whether the petitioners are the successors-ininterest based on the registered sale deed executed in their favour by the original inamdars in favour of their vendors prior to the issuance of ORC. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Tanu Ram Bora v, Pramod Ch. Dasll, Ashok v. . Ram Naraint3. There is no Annapurnar2 and Ram pyare quarrel with regard to the proposition laid down in the above decisions by the Honble Supreme Court and the Hon,ble Fligh the Civil Court and v it is for thc Court of Karnataka. Article 226 of the tl tle But, as held above, this Court sitting under Constitution of India cannot go into those disputed questions of facts and decide as to who is having a better

In vieu, of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Courr does nor find any merir in writ petitio n No. 2g72Oof 200g or grounds to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the

" 1zo to1 + scc ¹⁷³

{

i

I

^&#x27;' 20t 7 SCC OnLine Kar 4483 '' ( l98s) 2 SCC ¹⁶²

petitioners to agitate their rights and seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court.

$\overline{1}$

Insofar as W.P. No. 9027 of 2009 is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the order granting ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents is held to be valid by this Court. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is only after grant of the ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents and the change of entries in the name of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.9027 of 2009 is only a consequential one. The entries in the revenue records do not confer or divest a person of his rights and are for fiscal purpose. The entries are always amenable to the final orders, as the writ petition filed challenging the grant of ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.28720 of 2008 is dismissed, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR $\neg\nabla\n$ SECTION OFFICER

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

To.

• 1. 10 L.R. Copies.
• 2. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.
• 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
• 4. One CC to Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC]5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
• 6. One CC to Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
• One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]<br>Two CD Copies $7.$
• One spare copy

CHR sab

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/06/2021

COMMON ORDER

WRIT PETITION Nos.28720 of 2008 and 9027 of 2009

DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS