THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12848 of 2003 Dated:13.12.2010 Between: Smt.B.Vijayalaxmi, And another. ...Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12848 of 2003 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by two persons against the order dated 18.06.2003 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Inams Act). The undisputed brief fact of the matter is as follows. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are real brothers, are successors of inamdars M/s.Aleemuddin, Fasiuddin and Abdul Hussain in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.04 guntas in survey No.114/1 (excluding Ac.1.01 guntas covered by road) of Baswaipalli Village of Birkur Mandal in Nizamabad District. Respondent No.3 allegedly succeeded to Ac.1.03 guntas and respondent No.4 succeeded to Acs.2.00. It is the case of the petitioners that the fourth respondent sold the land classified as Dastagirdhan admeasuring Ac.1.00 under an unregistered sale deed dated 05.03.1981. The petitioners then filed an application under Section 10 of the Inams Act before the second respondent for Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC). The said authority impounded the unregistered document, recorded the statement of the third respondent, and relying on the same issue ORC by proceedings dated 24.05.1996. Being aggrieved by ORC, the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 24 of the Inams Act. The appellate authority set aside the ORC and allowed the appeal observing that the name of the fourth respondent is not found in the records prior and after 1973-1974 and, therefore, he could not have sold the land to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners relies on the statement allegedly made by the fourth respondent before the second respondent at the time of enquiry under Section 10 of the Inams Act. According to him, when respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are the successors of inamdars sold their right and interest in the property to the petitioners, they are alone entitled to ORC. The submission of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is well settled that after abolition of inams in Telangana Area the land vests in the State. The land which acquires the status of Dastagirdhan can be claimed by only persons who are found to be in occupation as on 01.11.1973 i.e., date of vesting. So, any transfer between the abolition and date of vesting or before the issue of ORC in favour of any person would amount to the transfer by a person who has no title to the property. A plain reading of Sections 4, 8 and 10 of the Inams Act makes it very clear. I n Lokraj v Kishan Lal[1] the Supreme Court considered the effect of abolition of inams and vesting of land in the State by reason of which the right in the land stood transferred to the State. It was held therein as under. Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory operation unless re-grant is made. We are not concerned with the consequences that would ensue after re- grant of this appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the question that may arise after the re-grant. (emphasis supplied) Thus, the question whether sale of inam land to inamdars or his successors after the date of vesting is valid or not is no more res integra. No inamdar can do so without obtaining ORC. There is a clear finding recorded by the first respondent that the fourth respondent has no right, title and interest in the inam property even to claim ORC, and therefore, his statement cannot be the basis for impounding the unregistered sale deed dated 05.03.1981 and for issuing ORC in favour of the petitioners. The impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. The Writ Petition for the above reasons is accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.12.2010 vs [1] (1995) 3 SCC 291