THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2508 of 2006 Date:19th July, 2010 Between: Ramidi Mallamma W/o. Kista Reddy (Died) per LRs. & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors. .....Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2508 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 12 in number, seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings No.F1/3208/2005, dated 31.12.2005 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the occupancy rights certificate granted in proceedings No. J/1307/2004, dated 14.12.2004, on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent as they are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Sections 3 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. One Ramidi Kista Reddy, who is the father of the 1st petitioner, and petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division, for grant of occupancy rights certificate in respect of Ac.95.34 cents comprising Survey Nos.1122, 1130, 1150, 1152, 1153, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1167, 1168, 1165, 1166, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1182, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189 and 1190. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division, under proceedings No.H/3959/81, dated 27.08.1982, considered the representation and proceeded to register them as occupants and rendered them liable to pay the Government an amount of Rs.8,646-80 ps. towards premium in 10 (ten) annual instalments commencing from August, 1982. They are also made liable to pay the land revenue assessment in respect of the said lands in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Some of the respondents herein viz., Vemula Pochaiah, Vemula Yadagiri, Vemula Bikshapathi, Vemula Laxmaiah, Vemula Maisaiah, Vemula Swamy, Vemula Sambaiah, Vemula Anjaiah, Vemula Ananthaiah, Vemula Mallaiah (died) per L Rs., Smt.Jayamma, Vemula Yadaiah and Vemula Muthaiah filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act. The appeal was allowed so far as it relates to Survey No.1174 admeasuring Ac.1.15 guntas. Ramidi Kista Reddy and others filed W.P.No.4513 of 1993 assailing the legality and validity of the order in proceedings B3/3344/86, dated 21.09.1992 passed by the appellate authority. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 07.07.1997 setting aside the order impugned therein and remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, for fresh consideration on certain points. For better understanding of the purpose for which the matter was remanded to the appellate authority-Joint Collector, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order in the Writ Petition, which reads as hereunder: “We have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioners and counter affidavit filed by the respondents. A close scrutiny of the impugned order discloses that the first respondent passed an order without considering the question whether respondents have filed any application for Protected Tenancy Certificate in respect of the lands in Survey No.1174 and also did not consider the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court in RADHA K.S.REDDY, died per L.Rs. & ORS. VS. MOHD. MUJASABA KHAN AND ORS. (1989 (2) APLJ 507 (D.B.) and A.NAGAIAH 7 ORS. VS. THE COLLECTOR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AND ORS. (1988 (2) APLJ 454 (D.B.) and contended that the impugned order dated 21.9.1992 is without jurisdiction and authority of law. In view of the above decisions referred to above (1) and (2) supra, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh disposal taking into consideration the following points: 1) Non filing of the application by the respondents under Section 7 or any other provisions of the said Act, within the time as contemplated under the Act seeking issuance of Protected Tenancy Certificate in respect of Ac.1.15 gts. belonged to the petitioners : What its effect? 2) In the absence of condonation of delay petition, the appeal filed by the respondents within the statutory period of 30 days is not maintainable?; 3) What is the effect of Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act and how far the decisions referred to above (1) & (2) supra; are applicable? and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties.” On remand, the appellate authority heard the parties and allowed them to place on record additional material. Taking into consideration the revenue entries and certain observations made by the civil Court in O.S.No.611 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East & North, Ranga Reddy District, the appellate authority proceeded to allow the appeal setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of Ac.1.15 gts. in Survey No.1174 and remanding the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, for de novo enquiry in respect of Survey No.1174, by order dated 05.06.2004. For better understanding of the reasons recorded by the appellate authority, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as hereunder: “Regarding entitlement of occupancy rights, the right to declaration as occupants is available only in respect of the lands in which they were in personal cultivation on the notified date of vesting i.e. 1.11.1973. On verification of the copies of Pahanies filed earlier in the appeal and the observation made in Civil Suit the names of the parties recorded in possession column of pahanies in the respective years are as under: Appellants Respondents 1955-56 1954-55 1956-57 195758 1961-62 1959-60 1963-64 1964-65 1964-65 1967-68 1965-66 1968-69 1970-71 1972-73 1973-74 In view of the above entries the presumption of continuous possession over the land till the date of vesting is in favour of the appellants. Regarding the finding of the court in O.S.No.611 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East & North, Ranga Reddy District, the suit was filed by the respondents herein against the appellants herein for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents herein in Sy.No.1174. The suit was filed in December, 1988. In the said suit the court has relied on the documents which were filed before the court and most of the documents relied on pertain to the years from 1982-83 to 1994-95 which are subsequently to the 1973- 74. The said court observed that, “even as per the own showing of defendants (i.e. appellants herein) in their written statement the Revenue records show their possession from 1950 to 1981 only. Admitted after 1981 the Revenue record reveal that the plaintiffs have been in possession of suit land. Example B-1 to B14 are pahanies between the year 1959 to 1980-81 and they reveal the defendants are enjoying of suit land. But the defendants failed to establish with possession after 1980-81”. The Civil Court has also admitted the possession of the appellants upto 1980-81. Now for grant of occupancy rights the appellants who are in possession of land as on the date of vesting are entitled to claim U/S.8 of the Act and whatever evidence established by the respondents is subsequent to 1980-81. In view of the above, the occupancy rights granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in favour of the respondents vide H/3959/81, dated -8-1992 are hereby set aside only in respect of Sy.No.1174 extent (1.15) acres of Edulabad village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division for denovo enquiry in respect of Sy.No.1174 and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of the case within a period of (2) months from the date of receipt of order.” On remand, the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, came to the conclusion that Vemula Pochaiah and “Vagaira” were in physical possession of Ac.1.15 gts of Edulabad village as on 01.11.1973 and thereby proceeded to grant occupancy rights certificate in Form No.III under Section 8 of the Act, by order dated 14.12.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, Ramidi Mallamma and others, who are the petitioners 1 to 3, 7 to 12 herein, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 24 of the Act. The appellate authority, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that Vemula Pochaiah, who is the ancestor of 1st respondent, was in occupation of Ac.1.15 gts. in Sy.No.1174 as on the relevant date and as such, the respondents herein being his L.Rs. are entitled to occupancy rights certificate. With the above observation, the appellate authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by order dated 31.12.2005. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 10.02.2006. An interim order of status quo in all respects came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.3068 of 2006. Respondents 3 to 19 entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 19. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since a long time and that the respondents taking advantage of a stray entry without any right, questioned the occupancy rights certificate granted in favour of the petitioners by the Revenue Divisional Officer on earlier occasion. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on the revenue entries in respect of the years 1970-71, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77. By referring these entries, learned counsel contends that in the years 1974-75 Ramidi Krishna Reddy and ‘Vagaira’ includes the petitioners. What he means to say is that the word ‘Vagaira’ indicates not only Ramidi Krishna Reddy, but some others in the year 1974-75 and so also in the years 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1975-76, wherein the names of Vemula Pochaiah and Vagaira have been mentioned in possessory column. According to the learned counsel, the word “vagira” includes the names of the petitioners herein. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 19 submits that the entries in pahani patrikas referred by the primary authority and the appellate authority clinchingly establish the possession of the respondents over the land in dispute at the relevant time and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. After the commencement of the Constitution, the State found it expedient to provide for the abolition of Inams in public interest and convert the same into either Government land or purely private land. In Andhra Pradesh number of enactments have been passed with the object of abolishing the ‘Inams” and to vest the same in the Government and also to abolish them and convert them into Ryotwari lands. In either case, the State has taken care to ensure that the intermediaries interest is protected in different ways. The prominent legislations pertaining to abolition of Inams in A.P. are: (1) The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. (2) The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Assessment Act, 1955; and (3) The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. 8. A clear analysis of the statements of objects and preamble of these enactments shows that they have been enacted with the primary objective of abolishing the ‘Inams’. For instance the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 has been passed with the following objects and provided for: i) abolition of all imams other than village service imams and imams held by religious and charitable institutions; ii) full assessment being charged for such abolished imams; iii) the retention by the inamdar as well as his tenants of lands under their personal cultivation to the extent of the maximum allowed under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. and iv) giving adequate compensation for the lands resumed them. 9. Section 3 of the Act provides for abolition and vesting of ‘Inams’ in the State. The consequences of such abolition and vesting have been mentioned under Section 3(2) which are as under: a) the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1317, Fasli relating to Inams and other enactments shall apply to the ‘Inam’ lands; b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar, kabiz-e- kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non- protected tenant in respect of the inam land shall lease and be vested absolutely in the state free from all encumbrances. c) All such inam lands shall be liable to payment of land revenue. d) All rents and land revenue including ceses and Royalties, accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or after the date of vesting, shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar. 10. Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 19 herein have no common ancestors and they are from two different families. The total extent of the land in question is Ac.1.15 gts. It is highly inconceivable that Ac.1.15 gts. of land is being cultivated by the two families, whose total number exceeds 20. Indisputably, Sharfuddin Khan and others are inamdars. The petitioners did not choose to examine any one from the family of inamdars to speak of their possession. The appellate authority in its order dated 05.06.2004 extracted the entries in the revenue records relatable to both the parties. The names of the respondents herein have been consistently stated from the year 1955-56 to 1973-74. Whereas, the names of the petitioners herein have been reflected in the revenue entries in the years 1954-55, 1959-60, 1964-65 and 1967-68. 11. The primary authority, on remand of the matter, considered the revenue entries and came to the conclusion that the respondents were in occupation of the land as on 01.11.1973 and thereby proceeded to grant occupancy rights over an extent of Ac.1.15 gts. in Survey No.1174 of Edulabad village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in their favour under Section 8 of the Act. The very fact that the primary authority proceeded to grant occupancy rights certificate under Section 8 of the Act indicates neither party established of their being a protected tenant in respect of the land in dispute. Section 8 of the Act deals with the registration of non- protected tenant as occupant. It is trite to refer Section 8 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “8. Registration of non-protected tenant as occupant:- Every non-protected tenant shall, with effect from the date of vesting subject to Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (Act XXI of 1950) be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inam lands in his possession as may be left over after the allotment under Section 4 which, immediately before the date of vesting were under his personal cultivation and which together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the family holding. (2) The non-protected tenant shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not. (3) Non non-protected tenant shall be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount equal to sixty times the land revenue for dry land and twenty times for wet land. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable.” 12. The relevant date for conferring the occupancy rights is 01.11.1973. As per the entries, which have been copiously referred by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority, the only inference that can be drawn is that it is the respondents, who are in possession of the land as on the notified date i.e., 01.11.1973. Taking into consideration the possession of the respondents as on 01.11.1973, the primary authority proceeded to issue the occupancy rights certificate in their favour. The order passed by the primary authority came to be confirmed by the appellate authority. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th July, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2508 of 2006 Date:19th July, 2010