IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6980 of 2001 Between: Mangali Mallaiah S/o.Late Buchaiah R/o.Damarlapalli Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Shri Mangali Rangaiah S/o.Late Buchaiah R/o.Damarlapalli Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the orders of the 2nd respondent authority in No.L/394/93 dated 11.6.93 as confirmed by the 1st respondent authority in No.F1/7854/94 dt. 9.10.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law laid by this Hon'ble Court and further set aside the same as the same being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 6980 OF 2001 ORDER: 1. The petitioner questions the order of 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, dismissing his appeal preferred under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Inams Act”). 2. Brief facts, as stated in the petitioner’s affidavit, are as follows, Fathers of the petitioner and 3rd respondent are joint owners of land in Sy.Nos. 242 and 245 of Damarlapalli village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. After death of their fathers, the petitioner and 3rd respondent succeeded to the said land. It is alleged that the land admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas has throughout been in their joint possession and enjoyment and a patta was also granted on 11.1.1970 under the provisions of the Inams Act in which their fathers were shown to have half share each in the said land. It is, however, alleged that the 3rd respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Officer who is primary authority under the Inams Act and he was granted occupancy rights certificate to the exclusion of petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. Under the impugned order, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of 3rd respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Revenue who has produced the record. 4. I have perused the record which shows joint possession and enjoyment of fathers of petitioner and 3rd respondent. The most crucial document viz., pahani for the year 1973-74 also shows the name of the petitioner’s father. In fact, in the impugned order the Joint Collector specifically referred to the said fact by mentioning as follows, “The Xerox copy of the pahani for the year 1973- 74 reveals the name of Buchaiah, father of the appellant against Sy.Nos. 242 and 245. No doubt the appellant’s father name was recorded as possessor during the crucial period for granting occupancy rights i.e., 1.11.1973. But stray entries in the revenue records do not create any rights in favour of the appellant.” 5. The most crucial revenue record for the relevant year cannot be brushed aside as a stray entry. The very approach of the learned Joint Collector in dealing with the appeal is, therefore, highly dissatisfactory and is not in terms of the appellate jurisdiction exercisable by the Joint Collector under the Inams Act. It is to be remembered that the grant of occupancy rights certificate under the Inams Act is a quasi- judicial function which shall be discharged by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as a primary authority, and the Joint Collector, as an appellate authority. Both the said authorities, have failed to discharge their aforesaid duties in accordance with the principles under the Inams Act. If the revenue entries of the relevant period are excluded on the ground of stray entry, there would be no other reliable proceedings to ascertain as to who is in possession on the relevant date i.e., 1.11.1973 under the Inams Act. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside remitting the said appeal No. F1/7854/94 for fresh consideration to the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district with a direction that he shall notify the parties, hear and dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending this writ petition, an order of status quo was directed to be maintained by order of this Court dated 18.7.2002. The said order shall continue to operate till the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy decides the appeal as directed above. 8. Court Officer of this Court shall return the original record to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue under his acknowledgement. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 6.2.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3. CC to GP for Revenue, 4. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}