IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.27317, 27612 OF 1996 AND 1884 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO : 27317 of 1996: Between: 1 Mohd. Afzal Khan (Died) S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, R/o. H.No. 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. 2 Fazal Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, Rep., by GPA holder Basit Ahmed Khan, S/o. Mohd.Afzal Khan, R/o. 4-1-9, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. 3 Basith Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, The Petitioner 3 brought on Records as LRS of Deceased as per Court Order dt.4.12.97 in WPMP.No.25351/97. 4 Asad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, The Petitioner 4 brought on Records as LRS of Deceased as per Court Order dt.4.12.97 in WPMP.No.25351/97. 5 Javeed Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sultan Ahmed Khan, The Petitioner 5 brought on Records as LRS of Deceased as per Court Order dt.4.12.97 in WPMP.No.25351/97. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad. 3 Chinna Boina Shantamma, W/o. Komaraiah, R/o. H.No. 1-8-725/A/2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad. 4 Chinnaboina Krishna, W/o. Komaraiah, R/o. H.No. 1-8-725/A/2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad. 5 Chinnaboina Rajaiah, W/o. Komaraiah, R/o. H.No. 1-8-725/A/2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records relating the order dt.28.6.90 of the 2nd respondent in Case No. B2/1092/90 and quash the same as being violative of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of A.P. Record of Rights in land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 and pass such other or further orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.V.RAVINDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION No.27612 of 1996: Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVINDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . WRIT PETITION No.1884 of 1997: Between: 1 Chinnaboyina Santamma W/o Komaraiah R/o Nallakunta , Hyderabad. 2 Chinnaboyina Krishna S/o Komaraiah R/o Nallakunta , Hyderabad. 3 Chinnaboyina Rajaiah S/o Komaraiah R/o Nallakunta , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Joint Collector and Addl. Dist Magistrate Hyderabad dist. 2 Md. Afzal Khan S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan 3 Fazal Ahmed Khan S/o Sultan Ahmed Khan rep by GPA Basit Khan . R/o 4-1-9-, Ramkoti , Hyderabad. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer Hyderabad.(inams Tribunals). .....RESPONDENTS 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 calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 17-08-1996 passed by the 1st respondent in case No.B2/694/96 and to quash the same as illegal and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.C.JAYASREE SARATHY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.27317, 27612 OF 1996 AND 1884 OF 1997 C O M M O N O R D E R These three writ petitions, interconnected as they are, commend a disposition to a conjoined adjudication. Hence, this common order. For convenience, the unoﬃcial parties to this lis are referred to as per their array in W.P.No.27317 of 1996, the forerunner of this batch. It is relevant to note that in this writ petition, Petitioners 3 to 5 are brought on record as the legal representatives of Mohd. Afzal Khan, the deceased petitioner 1, respondents 6 to 11 are brought on record as the legal representatives of Smt.Chinnaboina Shantamma, the deceased respondent 3, and respondent 12 is brought on record as the legal representative of Smt.Jagadamba, the deceased respondent 11. Similar steps were taken in this regard in W.P.No.27612 of 1996. In W.P. No.1884 of 1996, petitioners 3 to 5 were brought on record as the legal representatives of deceased petitioner 1 but no steps were taken with regard to respondent 3. However, the estate of respondent 3, Smt.Chinnaboina Shantamma, petitioner 1 therein, is adequately represented by her sons, petitioners 2 and 3 therein. The factual milieu, which lends support to this long and protracted litigation stretching over nearly three decades, as reﬂected by the pleadings in these writ petitions is summarized hereunder: According to petitioners 1 and 2, their grandfather Mohd. Afzal Khan, was the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.3-09 guntas forming part of Sy.Nos.74 and 75 correlated to new Sy.No.12 situated at Bagh Lingampally, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13 Meher 1333 Fasli. Mohd. Afzal Khan is said to have gifted this land to his daughter, Smt.Samdhani Begum, the mother of petitioners 1 and 2. This gift is evidenced by a registered gift deed executed on 21 Sherwar 1351 Fasli. Petitioners 1 and 2 inherited this property upon the death of their mother, Smt.Samdhani Begum, in the year 1969. It is alleged that one Sri Nasrullah Khan and one Sri Vidyasagar Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of Smt.Samdhani Begum over the subject property in the year 1966, compelling her to ﬁle a suit against them seeking a perpetual injunction. The said suit, after being transferred, was numbered as O.S.No.19 of 1971 on the ﬁle of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Sri G.Vidyasagar Reddy, the Defendant No.1 in the said suit, laid a claim to the subject property on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by one Sri Ramachandra Rao. The said suit was decreed by Judgment dated 30.10.1972 and it is pointed out that the Court gave a categorical ﬁnding that Sri Ramachandra Rao, through whom Sri G.Vidyasagar Reddy claimed title, was a ﬁctitious person. It is also pointed out that the Court decided on facts, after an enquiry into the revenue records and examination of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, that the land in Sy.No.12, Sy.Nos.74 and 75 and portions of Sy.Nos.76 and 77 overlap each other and that the subject property situated in Sy.Nos.74 and 75 (Paigah) of Bagh Lingampally was the same as the property shown in Sy.No.12 of Bagh Lingampally. Another aspect worthy of notice in this Judgment is the fact that it reﬂects the plaint allegation of Smt.Samdhani Begum that, when the defendants tried to attempt to trespass into the subject land, it was Sri Komuraiah, her Chowkidar, who resisted this illegal attempt and that the wife of Sri Komuraiah was the person who informed Smt.Samdhani Begum about the attempt made by the defendants in the suit to trespass into the property. It is pointed out that Smt.Chinaboina Shanthamma, respondent 3, is none other than the wife of Sri Komuraiah. Petitioners 1 and 2 also disclosed various transactions and events in proof of their possession and title over the subject property. It is stated that they alienated a portion of the land, admeasuring 4,782 square metres, to Padma Co- operative Society and an extent of 1,100 square yards to Balaji Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society. These sales are said to have been made after obtaining permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities on 07.02.1979 and 26.05.1982 respectively. Further, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad took possession of an extent of 741.48 square metres out of the subject property on 15.06.1972 for the purpose of forming a drain and the Award dated 18.02.1980 determined the compensation payable to petitioners 1 and 2 for this acquisition. The Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, also issued proceedings in CC.H/8314/76, dated 18.01.1982 and in CC.H/8315/76, dated 24.05.1982 under Sections 8(4) and 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act of 1976’) holding that in so far as the subject property was concerned, there was no excess vacant land as per the computation made under the Act of 1976. It is stated that after these alienations and transfers, petitioners 1 and 2 were left with an extent of 2,400 square yards of the subject property, bearing House No.1-8-725/A/2 at Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad. While matters stood thus, it is stated that respondent 3, being the wife of the Chowkidar of the subject property, sought to assert rights over an extent of 1 acre covering the subject property, adverse to the petitioners and in this process, four suits being O.S.Nos.87 of 1983, 89 of 1983, 233 of 1984 and 1039 of 1990 came to be filed by and between the rival parties. It is stated that in all these suits respondent 3 asserted contradictory claims. On the one hand, she claimed title by adverse possession and on the other, as the absolute owner and possessor over Ac.1-00 guntas of land covering the subject property. Thereafter, respondent 3 and one Sri Sekhar Reddy are said to have fraudulently obtained a building sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which was subsequently cancelled. The said Sri Sekhar Reddy ﬁled a suit O.S.No.4251 of 1991 before the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction against the Municipal Authorities and petitioners 1 and 2, having gotten themselves impleaded therein, came to know for the ﬁrst time through the pleadings ﬁled by the plaintiﬀs in that suit that respondent 3 and respondents 4 and 5, being her sons, had applied for and obtained occupancy certiﬁcate dated 04.08.1990 under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) in respect of Ac.0.24 guntas of land, covering the 2,400 square yards of the subject property left in their possession. It is stated that the subject land is not an inam land and further, respondent 3 played a fraud upon the authorities claiming to be a tenant of Sri Ramachandra Rao over an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas for a period of forty years. Putting forth the said claim under application dated 08.07.1982, respondents 3 to 5 had sought for an occupancy certiﬁcate under Section 8 of the Act of 1955. Petitioners 1 and 2, upon enquiry, also came to know that in the ﬁrst instance, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dismissed the application dated 08.07.1982 made by respondents 3 to 5, by order dated 24.01.1990. This rejection was on the ground that the names of Respondents 3 to 5 did not ﬁgure in the revenue records in evidence of their position and possession as tenants at the time of vesting of the inam estate in the Government in the year 1955. It is pointed out that though respondent 3 claimed to have been in possession for more than four decades, her name did not ﬁnd place in the revenue records. It is also stated that the notice sought to be served upon the alleged inamdar, Sri Ramachandra Rao, by the Oﬃce of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, was returned with an endorsement that his whereabouts were not known. After the dismissal of the application dated 08.07.1982 by order dated 24.01.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, respondent 3 approached the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, with an application under Section 15(2) of the Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli (for short, ‘the Regulation of 1358F’) seeking rectiﬁcation of the entries in the revenue records for the years 1955-56 to1957- 58 in respect of Sy.No.12 of Bagh Lingampally, in so far as the extent of Ac.1-00 guntas was concerned. The said application was allowed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, by order dated 28.06.1990. It is pointed out that though respondent 3 alleged that she was in possession of an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas for over 40 years, she only sought rectiﬁcation of the entries in the revenue records for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58. It is also pointed out that before the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, respondent 3 arrayed one Sri Abdul Jaleel as the sole respondent. A perusal of the said order would show that respondent 3 claimed that originally, Sri Ramachandra Rao was the Inamdar of the land admeasuring Ac.5.06 gutnas in Survey No.12, Bagh Lingampally Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad, and that she was in cultivation and physical possession of an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas out of the said land in the capacity of a tenant of the Inamdar. She further claimed that Sri Abdul Jaleel, the sole respondent in that proceeding was shown as the possessor of the entire land in Survey No.12 of Bagh Lingampally Village. The order also reveals that Sri Abdul Jaleel appeared before the Court in person and stated that respondent 3 was cultivating an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas in Survey No.12 of Bagh Lingampally Village and that the remaining extent was in his cultivation. He conceded that he had no objection for recording the name of respondent 3 as tenant over the extent of Ac.0.24 guntas in Survey No.12. Basing upon the said deposition and the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Musheerabad, that respondent 3 was in possession of the extent of Ac.0.24 guntas in Survey No.12 of Bagh Lingampally Village, Musheerabad Mandal; the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, passed orders incorporating the name of respondent 3 in the revenue records for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58. It is relevant to note that this order is professed to have been passed under Section 15(2) of the Regulation of 1358F. It is also pointed out that Sri Abdul Jaleel, who appeared before the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, claiming to be the possessor of an extent of Ac.4.06 guntas in Survey No.12, Bagh Lingampally, never put forth a claim for an occupancy certiﬁcate under the Act of 1955, demonstrating the falsity of his deposition. Basing upon the order passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, on 28.06.1990, rectifying the revenue entries for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58, respondents 3 to 5 are said to have ﬁled a review petition before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, seeking issuance of an occupancy certiﬁcate under the Act of 1955. It is pointed out that there is no power of review provided under the said Act of 1955. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, acting upon the rectiﬁcation of the revenue records by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, allowed the review petition of respondents 3 to 5 and granted an occupancy certificate in their favour by order dated 04.08.1990. It is pointed out by petitioners 1 and 2 that in none of the other suits which were pending, respondent 3 disclosed the fact that she had obtained an occupancy certiﬁcate under the Act of 1955 or that she was a tenant in the subject land. It is also pointed that she claimed to be the tenant of very same Sri Ramachandra Rao who was held to be a ﬁctitious person by the Civil Court in its Judgment dated 30.10.1972 in O.S.No.19 of 1971. Be that as it may, petitioners 1 and 2 ﬁled an appeal under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 assailing the grant of the occupancy certiﬁcate by order dated 04.08.1990 in favour of respondents 3 to 5. The said appeal was ﬁled before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, and the order dated 04.08.1990 was suspended pending the appeal by the order of the appellate authority dated 02.11.1991. While so, owing to the vacancy in the oﬃce of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, the then District Collector, Hyderabad was given the charge temporarily and the said oﬃcer without aﬀording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, reserved Judgment in the matter. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioners 1 and 2 ﬁled W.P.No.16917 of 1991 before this Court and obtained an interim order dated 27.12.1991 restraining the District Collector, Hyderabad, from rendering a decision in the matter. However, the District Collector, Hyderabad, passed an order on 26.12.1991 itself dismissing the appeal and communicated the same to petitioners 1 and 2 on 28.12.1991. Petitioners 1 and 2, therefore, sought amendment of their prayer in W.P.No.16917 of 1991 seeking the setting aside of the appellate order dated 26.12.1991 passed by the District Collector, Hyderabad, and also the order dated 04.08.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. This Court disallowed the amendment sought by petitioners 1 and 2 in so far as the setting aside of the order dated 04.08.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, was concerned, as is evident from the ﬁnal order dated 14.12.1995. However, this Court set aside the order dated 26.12.1991 of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh. Being aggrieved by the fact that the learned Judge had not dealt with particular legal pleas raised by them with regard to the validity of the order dated 04.08.1990, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an appeal in W.A.No.275 of 1996. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.03.1996, disposed of the writ appeal permitting petitioners 1 and 2 to raise all factual and legal pleas available to them before the appellate authority. It is stated that upon remand, petitioners 1 and 2 urged various grounds on facts and in law before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, duly supporting the same with written arguments. However, the appellate authority, instead of dealing with the matter on merits, remanded the case to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, by his order dated 17.08.1996. The order of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, dated 17.08.1996 is questioned in W.P.No.27612 of 1996 by the petitioners and in W.P.No.1884 of 1997 by respondents 3 to 5. The order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, rectifying the entries in the revenue records in favour of respondent 3 for the years 1955- 56 to 1957-58 is challenged in W.P.No.27317 of 1996 by the petitioners. This, then, is the background of the litigation. The petitioners challenge the orders dated 28.06.1990, 04.08.1990 and 17.08.1996 passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, and the Joint Collector, Hyderabad respectively, on the following grounds: (i) The Joint Collector, Hyderabad, ought to have accepted the ﬁnding of the Civil Court in O.S.No.19 of 1971 that the land in Survey Nos.74 and 75 (old) of Bagh Lingampally Village is the same as that in Survey No.12 (new) of Bagh Lingampally Village. It is contended that it was not open to the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, to entertain a doubt in this regard as the ﬁnding of the competent Civil Court was binding on him. (ii) It is contended that there was no material before the said authority in proof of respondent 3’s claim that she was a tenant of the Inamdar, Sri Ramachandra Rao. Further, this claim was at variance with her stand in the four suits, which had been ﬁled before the Civil Court. The authority also failed to take note of the fact that there was a categorical ﬁnding by the Civil Court in its Judgment in O.S.No.19 of 1971 that Sri Ramachandra Rao was a ﬁctitious person. (iii) It is contended that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, had no power to entertain a review petition and accordingly his order dated 04.08.1990 granting an occupancy certiﬁcate to respondents 3 to 5 was without jurisdiction. (iv) It is contended that the authorities failed to recognize that the lack of bona ﬁdes of respondents 3 to 5 was manifested by the fact that they approached the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, seeking rectiﬁcation of the entries in the revenue records only for three years, though their claim was that they were in possession for over 40 years. The further fact that the so-called Inamdar, Sri Ramachandra Rao, never appeared before the said authority and the fact that Sri Abdul Jaleel only appeared to concede the case of respondent 3, ought to have weighed with the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, and prompted him to reject the application made by respondent 3 for rectiﬁcation of the entries. (v) It is contended that the land in question is a patta land as is evidenced by the valid registered documents of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 only put forth the claim that the land was Inam land with a view to knock it away. (vi) It is contended that the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, failed to notice that the relevant date for the purpose of granting an occupancy certiﬁcate is 01.11.1973, being the date when the Act of 1955 came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in its entirety and that respondents 3 to 5 could not assert a claim for an occupancy certiﬁcate basing upon the rectiﬁed entries for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58. It is pointed out that the names of respondents 3 to 5 did not ﬁgure in the revenue records for the years 1973-74, which is the period crucial for grant of an occupancy certificate. (vii) It is, therefore, contended that there was no reason for the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, to remand the matter without deciding the case on the basis of the ample material available before him, demonstrating that respondents 3 to 5 had no right to the occupancy certiﬁcate granted in their favour by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, under his order dated 04.08.1990. In W.P.No.1884 of 1997, respondents 3 to 5, being the petitioners therein, claimed that they were in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.24 guntas of land in Survey No.12 of Bagh Lingampally Village, Hyderabad, for more than 45 years. They laid a claim in the capacity of tenants of Sri Ramachandra Rao. Having admitted the fact that they obtained an occupancy certiﬁcate from the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, under his order dated 04.08.1990 and the fact that the petitioners 1 and 2 ﬁled an appeal against the same, and thereafter a writ petition, being W.P.No.16917 of 1991, before this Court, respondents 3 to 5 surprisingly claimed ignorance of the events that transpired in the said proceedings and stated that it was only after passing of the order dated 17.08.1996 by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, that they came to know about the developments in the matter. It is their case that there was no communication to them from their advocate and several allegations are made in this regard. It is contended that there was no reason for the appellate authority to remand the matter, given the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the said order suﬀers from violation of the principles of natural justice and causes unnecessary harassment to them as the matter would be re- opened once again upon remand. In W.P.No.27317 of 1996, the petitioners challenge the order dated 28.06.1990 passed by the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, rectifying the entries in Revenue Records for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58, on the ground that the same was in violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (presently known as ‘A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971’), (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’). It is contended that the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, had neither the jurisdiction nor the authority in law to order such rectiﬁcation of entries in the revenue records. The order is also challenged on the ground of limitation. On facts, it is contended that the so-called Inamdar, Sri Ramachandra Rao was never heard in the matter and basing upon the concocted evidence of Sri Abdul Jaleel, who conveniently conceded the case of respondent 3, the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, ordered rectiﬁcation of the entries in the revenue records, which cannot be sustained. Heard Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 12 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Oﬃcial respondents. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order