IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5445 of 2009 Between: Mandadi Pentaiah .. Petitioner AND Mandadi Sivakumar and 2 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri B. Ranganatha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in Case No.F2/23/2005, dated 23-04-2009 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. The 1st respondent herein filed a declaration in Form No-I under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 for registering him as an occupant in respect of Ac.10.35 guntas in Sy.No.255 of Veljerla-II village. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar issued notices in Form No-II to all the persons interested and passed an order on 30-01-2004 in File No.K/1709/92. The Revenue Divisional Officer noted the land in question to have been classified as Pan Maktha Inam and Muttiah to be the Inamdar. The Revenue Divisional Officer also noted that the declarant was put in possession of the land as on the date of the notification and date of vesting and again noted that Kistaiah, S/o Muttaiah was the occupant of the lands as on 01-11-1973 whose son is the declarant. The son of the Inamdar was noted to have gifted the suit land to the declarant, which was objected by another shareholder Narsimhulu and based on the local enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, the Revenue Divisional Officer noted that the grandfather of the declarant got the subject land in partition with Narsimhulu and he gifted the same to the declarant. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed issuance of the Occupancy Rights Certificate registering the declarant as the occupant. The Occupancy Rights Certificate was accordingly issued. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner filed the appeal before the Joint Collector contending that his grandfather Muttaiah was the Inamdar of the land after whom his father was in possession and after whom he was in possession and cultivation. He was the possessor and cultivator in 1972-73, but the 1st respondent, who is the son of the appellant, claimed the land under a registered Gift deed dated 11-09-1985. The revision petitioner contended in the appeal that before issuance of any Occupancy Rights Certificate, his father had no right to effect any transfer by way of any gift or otherwise and no delivery of possession was also effected in favour of the respondent. Therefore, he contended that the fraud played by the respondents should be negatived and the Occupancy Rights Certificate should be set aside. The Joint Collector passed the impugned order, after hearing the arguments of both parties, noting that Muttaiah was Inamdar and Kistaiah was the cultivator as per the Pahani of 1973- 74 and Khasara Pahani of 1954-55, while 1984-85 and 1990-91 pahanies recorded the appellant as the cultivator. The Joint Collector, therefore, opined the dispute to be of a civil nature and referred the revision petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of the matter, while setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30-01-2004 and thereby setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the respondent. Referring the revision petitioner to the Civil Court is challenged by him in this revision contending that the matter ought to have been remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar by the Joint Collector to consider the proper adjudication of the matter in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The reference to the Civil Court is in violation of the statute and hence, the revision petitioner desired the order to be reversed. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner could have been referred to a Civil Court or the matter should have been remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer? The revision petitioner relied on A.P. Punjabi Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District[1], wherein a learned Judge of this Court considered the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and noted that there was exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 32 of the Act. The learned Judge also noted the situations where the authority under the Act was excluded from the jurisdiction to entertain any application in respect of certain categories of properties. The revision petitioner also relied on S. Narasimha and others v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and another[2], wherein also another learned Judge considering the scope of this enactment and with reference to the case law on the subject elaborated the manner in which the possession has to be established as specified under the Act and the authorities concerned have to act in issuance of the Occupancy Rights Certificates. The revision petitioner also referred to Chama Narasimha Reddy and another v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others[3] wherein the learned Judge was dealing with any right of Inamdar to transfer a property to a third party after the specified date. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Joint Collector and the High Court at their respective levels in dealing with the cases arising under the statute was also considered and the relevant date for reckoning the determination of the Occupancy Rights Certificate was noted to be 1-11-1973 and it was also observed by the learned Judge that the right of any transferee to claim Occupancy Rights Certificates is also a question within the jurisdiction of the competent authorities under the special statute. It is not known as to under what provision or principle the Joint Collector directed the revision petitioner or the 1st respondent to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance without himself or the Revenue Divisional Officer going into the questions and exercising the jurisdiction vested in them under the special statute. As the revision petitioner obviously did not enter appearance before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the conflicting claims of the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent were not adjudicated within the scope of the enquiry under the statute by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the matter ought to have been rightly remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of referring the parties to the Civil Court. While the order of the Joint Collector setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30-01-2004 was not challenged by either party and the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the 1st respondent, therefore, stood set aside, the dispute between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent ought to be enquired into in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the rules made thereunder by the competent authority under the statute that is the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the matter has to be remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for such determination. Therefore, the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabugnagar dated 23-04-2009 in case No.F2/23/2005 is set aside to the extent of referring the revision petitioner to approach a Civil Court for redressal of the matter and the case in file No.K/1709/92 is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar for determination in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-07-2011 Ksn [1] 2004 (5) ALD 644 [2] 2006 (2) ALD 621 [3] 2007 (2) ALD 28