THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9999 of 2010 28.04.2010 Between: K.Ravindra Kumar And another. … Petitioners And Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy district At Khairatabad, Hyderabad, And others. ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9999 of 2010 ORDER: The two petitioners are son and mother. They are legal heirs of one Veera Chary. They allege that Kammari Radhaiah, grandfather of first petitioner, was in possession of land admeasuring Acs.0.22 guntas in survey No.11 of Raidurg Navakhasla village. The successor in title of respondents to 4 to 10 filed an application under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act) for occupancy rights certificate (ORC) under Section 10 of the Act. The second respondent which is inams tribunal, by order dated 09.05.1995 issued ORC in favour of Ramesh Pershad (since deceased) and respondents 4 to 10. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before first respondent. By impugned order, dated 11.03.2010, appellate authority considered record and dismissed the appeal. The counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that grandfather of first petitioner by name Kammari Radhaiah was in possession of schedule land and had filed O.S.No.737 of 2001 for injunction against Suraj Bhan. After death of said defendant, legal representatives were brought on record. They filed written statement to the effect that in another suit being O.S.No.174 of 1982 under a compromise decree, the petition schedule was partitioned and that Kammari Susheela, second petitioner herein signed a compromise. This was denied by petitioners. Further, he contends that Suraj Bhan claims himself that he purchased the property on 05.12.1966 but no such document was filed. Nextly he contends that against the ORC dated 09.05.1995, the petitioner was served a Memo in File.F1/2080/2009 to explain as to how the appeal is within limitation. The petitioners submitted explanation stating that the appeal was within time from the date of knowledge. He also contends that the contesting respondents purchased the property even before ORC was granted, and therefore, it does not confer any right on them. This Court heard counsel for petitioners. Except ORC issued by second respondent, the order as such is not placed before this Court. This Court perused appellate order and is convinced that first respondent correctly appreciated the disputed questions of fact, principles of law and correctly applied principles to the facts in arriving at a conclusion that it was the respondents who were in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 entitled to ORC. The Act abolishes all imams with effect from 20.07.1955 and provides for registration of inamdars, kabid e kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants as occupants of the lands for the purpose of registration and issue of ORC, a person must establish that he/she had been in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973. The enquiry by the inams tribunal, second respondent herein, is by and large limited to a singular fact although there may be other aspects like whether it is agricultural land, whether it is land used for residential purpose, in which case Section 9 of the Act applies and whether the land belongs to a temple or wakf in which case ORC cannot be granted. It is also now well settled by reason of Judgment of Supreme Court in Shri Lokraj v Kishan Lal[1] that before registration as occupant of inam land which vested in the State from 20.07.1955, no person or occupant has a transferable title and any transferee cannot claim a right because the transfer by a person who has no title itself is void. The counsel for petitioners emphatically pressed this aspect of the matter. The appellate authority considered this aspect of the matter and came to the conclusion that as per the extract of pahani for 1973-74, Kammari Radhaiah and Suraj Bhan are shown as possessors and therefore, Revenue Divisional Officer issued ORC in favour of Ramesh Pershad and his legal representatives who are respondents herein. The petitioners claim as successors of Kammari Radhaiah but there is no such proof placed before this Court. Therefore, the impugned order is unassailable and writ petition is misconceived. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 28.04.2010 Pln [1] (1995) 3 SCC 291