HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.2011 of 2003 Dated: 01-02-2011 Between: K.Venkateswarlu & another …Appellants AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.2011 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.No.15478 of 2003, dated 25.7.2003 at the admission stage holding that the appellants-writ petitioners are not entitled to any notice under Rule 6 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Rules, 1975 as they were not having any interest over the land either on the date of vesting of the property in the State i.e. on 20.7.1955 or on 1.11.1973 and declined to quash the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in granting occupancy rights certificate in Case No.B/2096/2001, dated 7.7.2003 and the consequential order, dated 19.7.2003. Petitioners claim to be purchasers of 227 sq.yds. with rooms bearing Municipal No.1-2-234/6/A/2, situated at Domalguda, Hyderabad under registered sale deeds, dated 17.5.2002 from P.V.Sharat Babu and P.Sandhya Lakshmi and since then, they have been in possession of the said property. According to the petitioners their vendors purchased the said property from S.Mohan Reddy, G.P.A. holder and son of Smt.S.Mangavathi, who in turn had purchased the same from Smt. Mysamma in 1980. Smt.Mysamma acquired the said property along with other property from 8th respondent, brother of respondents 2,3 and 7, who was declared as successor to the protected tenant of Sy.No.59, Daira Village, Himayathnagar Mandal, by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq by order, dated 30.10.1961. Pursuant to the order of succession granted in favour of 8th respondent, his name was also entered in the protected tenancy register. The petitioners’ vendors’ vendors are in lawful possession as on the date of vesting of the property i.e. on 1.11.1973. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued occupancy rights certificate to the respondents without giving any notice to the petitioners in the impugned proceedings and hence, the same are liable to be quashed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. According to the appellants-petitioners, their vendors’ vendor obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 29.6.1973 for construction of godown and rooms in the disputed land and that the same were constructed and leased out to M/s. Amar Gas Service from 1.9.1973. As per the requisition made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the necessary certificate was also produced by M/s.Amar Gar Services, which was not taken note by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since the structures existed as on 1.11.1973, under Section 9(2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’), the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land, provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force. However, if any dispute arises with regard to the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose, under Section 24(2) of the Act, the matter has to be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final. Since the petitioners’ vendors are claiming to be in possession of the house property as on 1.11.1973, the Revenue Divisional Officer is under obligation to refer the matter to the Special Tribunal under the Act, as has been held by this Court in G.V.Narasimha Reddy v. Syed Aktar Ali (1988 (2) ALT 136). Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, an appeal being Inams Appeal No.B2/5422/2003 has been filed before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District by the heirs of late Shanker Rao i.e. respondents 9 and 10 in the writ appeal. Therefore, whether the disputed land was converted lawfully or not has to be decided by the Joint Collector in view of the provisions of the Act. Hence it is always open for the writ petitioners to get themselves impleaded in the said appeal, wherein they can raise all the objections with regard to the grant of occupancy rights certificate along with the appellants. He fairly conceded that the petitioners are entitled to notice for participation in the enquiry to put forth their claim before the Revenue Divisional Officer in view of Section 9(2) of the Act and that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground that they are not entitled to any notice. Admittedly, the petitioners’ vendors are in possession of the property. Whether the disputed land was lawfully converted into non- agricultural purpose or not has to be decided in the light of the statutory provisions under Section 9(2) read with Section 24(2) of the Act. The writ petition cannot be thrown out at the admission stage on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to any notice, which has to be enquired into by the competent authority under the Act. Having regard to the same, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 25.7.2003 and allow the writ petition permitting the writ petitioners either to implead themselves as parties to the Inams Appeal pending before the Joint Collector or they can file a separate appeal against the impugned orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They are at liberty to raise all the grounds now raised before this Court, before the Joint Collector. On filing such implead petition or appeal by the petitioners, as the case may be, the Joint Collector has to decide the issue in the light of the judgment of this Court rendered in G.V.Narasimha Reddy, referred to supra, and pass appropriate orders. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 01, 2011 Tsr