IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.553 of 2011 Between: Syed Hussain Sab died LRs & 6 others .. Petitioners AND Syed Moinsab & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.553 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in Case No.K/3223/2009, dated 24.01.2011. 2. The present dispute was the subject of C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006 before this Court between the same parties and two others were impleaded after remand by this Court before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In that civil revision petition, the order passed by the Joint Collector, in Appeal No.F2/21/2005, dated 31.12.2005, dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.K/166/2002 on 19.11.2002 was under consideration. The learned Judge, in the orders in C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006, dated 26.12.2008, had concluded, after a detailed analysis of the questions of fact and law involved in the case, that while deciding the issue in question, the primary Tribunal has to give a finding that respondents 3 and 4 (respondents 1 and 2 herein) would fall in any of the five categories of holders of land viz., Inamdars, Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants and further to prove that in any one of the category, they have to show that as on the date of vesting, they were in possession of inam land as on 01.11.1973 (para 14 of the order). The learned Judge also noted that the findings of the primary Tribunal were solely based on the discreet enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and it is not the case of respondents 3 and 4 (respondents 1 and 2 herein) that they were inamdars or by virtue of succession, they got interest in the property of the original inamdar. 3. The learned Judge further found that there was no material to show that respondents 3 and 4 (respondents 1 and 2 herein) were in continuous possession of the land for not less than 12 years before the date of vesting or that they were protected tenants doing personal cultivation or that they are non-protected tenants as occupants. Consequently, the learned Judge concluded that the enquiry conducted by the primary Tribunal is not in accordance with law (para 17 of the order). Therefore, it was found that in the absence of determining the issue whether respondents 3 and 4 would fall under any of the provisions under Sections 4 to 8, which is sine qua non for issuance of an Occupancy Rights Certificate, it was a clear case of error of judgment which goes to the root of the case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the primary Tribunal to conduct a de novo enquiry, as contemplated under Section 149 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 3117 Fasli, and to pass orders in accordance with law. 4. It was this order of remand that led to the impugned order which recorded that respondents 3 and 4 herein were impleaded on their petition for impleadment and the order also recited that apart from the newly impleaded two respondents, the other respondents personally attended the case and orally requested for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. The impugned order further stated about examining the matter with reference to the material available on record and the written arguments of the parties, but not stating that the matter has been enquired as required under Section 149 of the statute as per the observations of this Court. It was not elaborated as to what was that enquiry conducted as required by the statutory provision. Again referring to the rival claims, the Revenue Divisional Officer noticed the possession of Abdul Khadeer, brother of the inamdar, on the crucial date 01.11.1973, cultivating the subject land. The Patwary was stated to have referred in the Pahanies as “Sontham” as on the crucial date 01.11.1973, in stead of writing the name of Abdul Khadeer and the absence of any evidence for the other parties led the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass an order again in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein. 5. The revision petitioners challenged the said order in this revision firstly, on the ground of not being given any notice of the de novo enquiry and not being given any opportunity of placing their version before the Revenue Divisional Officer and secondly, on the ground of respondents 1 and 2 herein having no right to the Occupancy Rights Certificate on merits. 6. Heard Sri P. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. None entered appearance for respondents 3 and 4, while Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration argued for respondents 5 and 6. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 8. The contention of the revision petitioners that they had no notice of the de novo enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and had no opportunity of representation, cannot be preferred in the face of the impugned order, specifically stating that notices were issued by registered post on 13.10.2009 to all the interested parties to attend on 07.11.2009 and the further statement about the absence of any objection for impleading respondents 3 and 4 herein by the revision petitioners 1 to 3 herein and also due to the Revenue Divisional Officer specifically stating that the other respondents, apart from respondents 3 and 4 herein, have personally attended the case and orally requested for issuing the Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. What has been recorded in such matters by the Court or a Quasi Judicial Tribunal is to be preferred than the self-serving and interested claims of the parties. 9. However, insofar as the other contentions of the revision petitioners are concerned, a close perusal of the impugned order does not even remotely indicate any compliance with the specific directions of this Court in C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006. There was no finding, as directed by this Court, as to under which of the five categories of holders of land, respondents 1 and 2 herein fall or about their possession as on 01.11.1973 of the inam land. There was also no consideration or conclusion about continuous possession of the land for not less than 12 years before the date of vesting or payment of the land revenue or the status of respondents 1 and 2 herein as protected tenants or non- protected tenants as occupants. The flaw in the order set aside in the earlier civil revision petition due to absence of determining the issue whether respondents 3 and 4 herein would fall under any of the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Land Revenue Act continued to vitiate the impugned order as well and therefore, what is sine qua non for issuance of an Occupancy Rights Certificate cannot be considered to have been adverted to. The observation of the Revenue Divisional Officer about the possession and cultivation of the land by Abdul Khadeer as on 01.11.1973 was stated, even by the impugned order, to have not been corroborated by the entries in the Pahanies made by the Patwary as “Sontham” and, therefore, the de novo enquiry, directed by this Court to be in accordance with Section 149 of the special statute, cannot be considered to have been conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in passing the impugned order. 10. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 forcefully contended that when a statutory right of appeal is available to the revision petitioners against the order, the remedy of revision before this Court may not be the appropriate course of action. However, the facts and circumstances of this case present a peculiar situation whereunder, notwithstanding the elaborate directions given by this Court in C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer had again taken recourse to a laconic order which, therefore, cannot be justified and again referring the parties to an appeal, etc., will only result in multiplicity of proceedings and protraction of the litigation. Jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such cases cannot be considered to be lacking and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel has fairly stated that he is not questioning the maintainability of the revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for this Court, but on the ground of propriety in approaching this Court without taking recourse to the statutory appeal. 11. Under the circumstances, as there was lack of compliance of the earlier directions in C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006 in passing the impugned order, the impugned order has to be set aside. However, so far as the appearance of parties before the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, to avoid any controversies, as sought to be projected in this revision petition by the revision petitioners, the parties shall be directed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on a specified date, except respondents 3 and 4 herein, who did not appear before this Court, to whom the Revenue Divisional Officer may give notices for appearance before him before proceeding with the enquiry. 12. In the result, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in Case No.K/3223/2009, dated 24.01.2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, for conducting a de novo enquiry in faithful compliance with the directions of this Court in C.R.P.No.4005 of 2006, dated 26.12.2008, and to pass orders in accordance with law. The revision petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 herein shall appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 02.12.2011, on which, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, shall fix a further date of hearing for appearance for which date, he shall issue notices to respondents 3 and 4 herein and proceed further with the de novo enquiry on that date. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.553 of 2011 Date: 29th October, 2011 KL