IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.11058 of 2001 Between: P.V.Narasimha Rao and four others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Appellate Authority under Inams Abolition Act), Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 25-10-1997 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 9-4- 2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he confirmed the order of respondent No.2. Heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The extent of Ac.5.10 guntas in Survey No.194/8 of Begumpet village is the subject matter of the long drawn litigation. The petitioners averred that they are the legal heirs of Smt.P.Sona Bai W/o.Venkata Ramanaiah. It is their case that the said property originally belonged to Nawab Sulthanul Mulk, eldest son of Sir Vicarul Umra and as he was found incapable of managing the Estate, the Nizam of Hyderabad took over the Estate under his own supervision in 1912 AD and an oﬃcer designated as Sadrul Maham of Paigah was appointed for the management, which was subsequently replaced by a Board of Trust in 1929 AD, and it continued to lookafter the affairs of Paigah till the abolition of Jagirs in 1949. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the report of Magadam Patwari of Begumpet village, Syed Najmul Hasan, Special Oﬃcer of Estate of Paigah obtained the approval for grant of patta in favour of Smt.Sona Bai and, accordingly, he sanctioned patta for Ac.13.00 of land in Survey No.194/8 by order dated 14t h Sherewar, 1353 Fasli (1942-43). According to the petitioners, in the year 1965 Smt.Sona Bai executed a lease deed in favour of Sri K.R.Reddy, who is the partner of Srinivasa Agricultural Firm, Vijayawada, for a period of three years, which was subsequently extended for a further period of ﬁfteen years, vide: registered document No.1404/68, dated 29-6-1968. Subsequently, by registered sale deed executed on 29-6-1971, Smt.Sona Bai sold Ac.7.13 guntas of land to Srinivasa Agricultural Firm, Vijayawada. Litigation ensued over the said land between the purchasers and the Court of Wards when the purchasers requested for implementation of supplementary Setwar by Nazim-e-Jamabandi, Hyderabad West. One Ravi Raja Rao, on behalf of the purchasers, ﬁled an appeal before the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, the District Revenue Oﬃcer went into the title of Smt.Sona Bai and rejected the contention of the Court of Wards that document dated 14 th Sherewar 1353 Fasli was not a genuine document. He also held that the Court of Wards has no right to challenge the valid orders issued by Paigah prior to its taking over the property because the then Paigah authorities had full authority to grant the lands. He also upheld the genuineness of the grant (assignment) in favour of Smt.Sona Bai with the ﬁnding that all through Smt.Sona Bai and the purchasers have been in possession and occupation of the land. The said order of the DRO was questioned by the Court of Wards in O.S.No.353 of 1978 on the ﬁle of the Court of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 5-1-1981, which was questioned in appeal in CCCA No.59 of 1981 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 14-10-1988 dismissed the said appeal with the categorical ﬁndings that the documentary evidence produced by the Estate of Paigah did not in any way show that the grant in favour of Smt.Sona Bai was not genuine; and that no evidence on behalf of the plaintiﬀ was produced to show that no assignment was made in favour of Smt.Sona Bai or that the assignment in her favour was a got up document. On 19-11-1981 the petitioners applied for grant of the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate (for short “the ORC”) under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) in respect of Ac.5.10 guntas of land which remained in possession of their family. By his order dated 25- 10-1987 respondent No.2 rejected the said application. Questioning the said order, the petitioners ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.1, which ended in its dismissal by order dated 9-4-2001. These two orders are assailed in this Writ Petition. I have carefully gone through the said two orders. Respondent No.2 in his order gave a ﬁnding that the documents produced by the petitioners show that Smt.Sona Bai had been in possession for a long time subsequent to the assignment of land in her favour. He, however, rejected the petitioners’ application for the ORC on the sole ground that the Administrative Oﬃcer of the Paigah had no right to assign the property belonging to Vicarul-Umra and that even at the time of passing of the order the wife of Vicarul-Umra viz., Jahandarunnissa Begum, agitated before the Nizam that the property belonged to her and it should be released in her favour. Respondent No.1 adopted a similar approach and for the same reason, as given by respondent No.2, he aﬃrmed the order of respondent No.2. As rightly pointed out by Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, the genuineness and competence of the grant made in favour of Smt.Sona Bai was upheld by the DRO in his order passed on 31-5- 1978. The said order was aﬃrmed in O.S.No.353 of 1978 and the Division Bench of this Court in CCCA No.59 of 1981 gave authoritative pronouncement regarding the right vested in Smt.Sona Bai. Therefore, it is not permissible for respondents 1 and 2 to go behind these speciﬁc findings regarding the grant. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, submitted that the ORC can be granted only in respect of an agricultural land and as found by respondent No.1 the Revenue Records show that there has been no cultivation over the land for several years. Though this contention appeared to be attractive at the ﬁrst blush, on a deeper scrutiny, I ﬁnd no substance in it. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioners it is categorically averred that during the lifetime of Smt.Sona Bai, i.e., in the year 1965, a lease deed for three years was executed in favour of Sri K.R.Reddy, a partner of Srinivasa Agricultural Firm, Vijayawada, for running a poultry farm and, subsequently, the lease was extended for a further period of 15 years, vide Registered lease deed dated 29-6- 1968. The Act does not deﬁne agricultural land. However, Section 2(2) provided that the words and expressions used in the Act but not deﬁned therein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1352 Fasli and the Rules thereunder. Section 2(1)(a) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 deﬁned ‘agriculture’ as including “poultry farming and stock breedings”. The plea of the petitioners that the subject land was under lease for the purpose of running poultry farm for a period of 15 years from 29-6-1968 is not disputed. Thus, the property was used for poultry farm till the year 1983. The petitioners made their application for grant of ORC on 19-11-1981. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramender Reddy and others Vs. District Collector, Hyderabad District1) the relevant date to get occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act is 1-11-1973. Therefore, as on that date and also even on 19-11-1981, when the application was made for grant of ORC, the lands in question were used for poultry purpose, which, as mentioned above, shall be deemed to be agricultural purpose. Though respondent No.1 observed that for a long time the property was not shown to be cultivated, such a ﬁnding is too vague to deny the valuable rights to the petitioners in the absence of a speciﬁc ﬁnding that as on the relevant date, viz., 1-11-1973 the property was not put to agricultural use. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Orders of respondents 1 and 2 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant the Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate in favour of the petitioners in respect of Ac.5.10 guntas of land in Survey No.194/8 of Begumpet village. --------------------- --------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 16-9-2008 MNR 1) 1993(2) An.W.R.84 (DB)