HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1892 of 2002 Date: 19th September 2011 Between: Kasim Shah, S/o.Ismail Sab, Aged 75 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Almaipet village, Andole Mandal, Medak District and others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.03.1992 passed in proceedings C.C.Nos.V/1988/1975, V/1987/1975 and V/1989/1975, by the 2nd respondent-Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District and to declare the action of the respondents in accepting the surrender of the lands, covered by various survey numbers, situated in Almaipet village, Andole Mandal, Medak District, to the extent which are in possession of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. Respondents 5 to 7 herein were the declarants in C.C.Nos.V/1988/1975, V/1987/1975 and V/1989/1975, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 before the 2nd-Tribunal. Respondents 5 to 7 herein were in possession of vast extents of inam lands in the villages of Moonapur, Kodur, Munimanikyam and Maddikunta of Medak District. Their declarations were scrutinised by the competent authority and they were found to be holding excess land equivalent to 2.2000 standard holdings each. In view of the determination of the excess holdings held by them, they were given notice to surrender the excess holdings under Section 10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Consequently, they filed surrender statement giving the particulars of extents and survey numbers in several villages including the lands at Almaipet village. The 2nd respondent-Tribunal, by the impugned order, ordered to take over possession of the lands as per the surrender statement filed by the declarants, however, without disturbing the possession of the protected tenants. When the authorities wanted to take actual possession of the lands as per the surrender statement, petitioners, who claim possession of the lands ranging between Ac.0.12 guntas and Ac.6.38 guntas, have filed the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the lands claimed by them are inam lands covered by the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘Act No.VIII of 1955’) and without notice and opportunity to them, such lands were declared by the inamdars, i.e. respondents 5 to 7. It is their case that they were already granted occupancy rights certificates in Form No.III as per the provisions of Act No.VIII of 1955; as such they cannot be dispossessed therefrom. It is further their case that they were not given any notice at any point of time and they are also not aware of the order dated 16.03.1992 and they came to know in the 1st week of January 2002 that when revenue authorities came to the village to take possession of the lands from them on the ground that such lands were surrendered by respondents 5 to 7 herein. It is further their case that as the lands in question are inam lands, by virtue of abolition of inams, the said lands vest with the State. It is stated that they were given occupancy rights certificates as they were in possession on the notified date and in spite of the same, respondents 5 to 7 misled the authorities and filed surrender statement with regard to the lands which are in their possession. Precisely, it is their case that by virtue of the occupancy rights certificates granted to them under the provisions of Act No.VIII of 1955, their possession is recognized, as on the notified date, i.e. 01.11.1973, and, as such, they cannot be dispossessed pursuant to the impugned order, accepting the surrender statement filed by respondents 5 to 7. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the 2nd respondent-Tribunal as well as the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. When notice sent to the unofficial respondents was returned, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to serve notice on respondents 5 to 7 by way of paper publication in a local newspaper. Accordingly, notice was published in Andhra Jyothi newspaper having circulation in the area and proof of service is filed. In spite of the same, there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 5 to 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Collector, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District, it is admitted that the declarants are the inamdars and it is stated that as they were in possession of inam lands as on 01.01.1975, the said lands were computed to the holding of the declarants. It is stated that as per the Rules framed under the the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, Form-VIII notice was issued calling for objections and the writ petitioners have not filed objections stating they are the occupants. It is further stated that in view of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Andole Mandal, on 29.11.1981 stating that declarants were in possession as on 01.01.1975, the said lands were accepted in surrender proceedings. The counter-affidavit further states that as the petitioners were granted O.R.Cs. in the year 1978 and 1979, as such, they could not have been in possession prior to 1978. It is further stated that determination of the excess land was done with reference to the notified date, i.e. 01.01.1975 as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Similarly, in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak it is stated that as the impugned order is passed by the 2nd respondent- primary Tribunal, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the declarants were the inamdars of the lands covered in the writ petition and as they were in possession of the same as on 01.01.1975, the said extents were computed to the holding of the declarants and there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is stated that O.R.Cs. were issued to the petitioners in the years 1978 and 1979; as such, it is to be construed that they were never in possession of the said lands prior to 1978; therefore, the 2nd respondent- Tribunal has rightly computed the lands to the holding of the declarants by complying the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. While denying the allegation of the petitioners that no notice is given to them, it is stated that public notice was issued in Form No.VIII before accepting the surrender statement filed by respondents 5 to 7 as required under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. Heard Sri R.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the lands declared by respondents 5 to 7 were inam lands governed by the provisions under Act No.VIII of 1955. In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant sanad order or instrument, Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil or Revenue of Atiyat and with effect from the date of vesting, all inams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. The Act also notifies the consequences which shall ensue on abolition of inams. The provisions of the said Act recognise the registration of certain categories of persons as occupants and they are entitle to occupancy rights. In this case, it is also not in dispute that consequent to abolition of inams, the petitioners were granted occupancy rights certificates in Form No.III and those certificates have become final. A Division Bench of this Court has held that for the purpose of vesting, the crucial date is 01.11.1973. Once occupancy rights certificates are issued in favour of the petitioners, which have become final, with regard to the lands in question, it implies that they were in possession on the notified date and also for prior statutory period for grant of occupancy rights certificates. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, notified date for the purpose of determination of excess land is 01.01.1975. It may be that by the time unofficial respondents have filed the declarations including the lands which are in possession of the petitioners; petitioners were not granted occupancy rights certificates under the provisions of Act No.VIII of 1955, but once occupancy rights certificates are issued to the petitioners the said lands could not have been accepted for surrender by the respondent-authorities pursuant to the surrender statement filed. By virtue of the grant of occupancy rights certificates, they acquire title and possession to the property in question. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the respondents to accept the surrender to the extent of the said lands which are in possession of the petitioners, towards the excess lands on the declarations filed by respondents 5 to 7 under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. As it is stated that petitioners were not put on notice at the stage when surplus lands were determined on the declaration filed by respondents 5 to 7, and it is their case that they were not given notice, before accepting surrender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Although it is the case of respondents 1 to 4 that the petitioners were issued occupancy certificates in the year1978-79, it is to be seen that their rights are determined with reference to their possession on the notified date, i.e. 01.11.1973 and merely because certificates were issued at a later point of time, it cannot be construed that the petitioners were not in possession as on 01.11.1973. As much as it is not in dispute that the lands in question are inam lands held by respondents 5 to 7 and further occupancy rights certificates issued to the petitioners have become final, their possession dates back to 01.11.1973 and to anterior period which is statutorily required for grant of occupancy rights certificates. For the aforesaid reasons, respondents ought not to have accepted the surrender statement filed by respondents 5 to 7 to the extent of the lands held by the petitioners for which occupancy rights certificates were issued. It is also to be noticed that the impugned order is came to be passed after several years after issuance of occupancy rights certificates to the petitioners under Act No.VIII of 1955. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 16.03.1992 passed in proceedings C.C.Nos.V/1988/1975, V/1987/1975 and V/1989/1975, by the 2nd respondent-Tribunal, is quashed to the extent of lands for which occupancy rights certificates are issued to the petitioners or their predecessors in title under the provisions of Act No.VIII of 1955. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 19th September 2011 MRR