* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION Nos.18038 OF 2001 AND 2722 OF 2005 % Dated 14-11-2008 + WRIT PETITION No.18038 OF 2001 # Mir Sadath Ali. … Petitioner Vs. $ The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and ten others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao ^ Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue for R.1 and R.2. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad for R.3 Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy for R.4 Sri B.Vjaysen Reddy for R.5 to R.11. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) AIR 1952 SC 369. 2) AIR 1954 SC 92 3) AIR 1960 SC 12 4) AIR 1963 SC 1241 5) AIR 1978 AP 200 6) AIR 1979 SC 1320. 7) 2006 (5) ALT 754 8) 2006(6) ALD 169 9) AIR 1978 AP 444 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.18038 OF 2001 AND 2722 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION No.18038 OF 2001 Between: Mir Sadath Ali. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and ten others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue for R.1 and R.2. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad for R.3 Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy for R.4 Sri B.Vjaysen Reddy for R.5 to R.11. WRIT PETITION No. 2722 OF 2005 Between: Gokari Jagadish. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy. Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue for R.1 and R.2. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad for R.3 Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao for R.4. This Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT:- Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assailed the validity of order dated 6-8-1994 passed by respondent No.2 and conﬁrmed by order dated 31-3-2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he granted Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate (for short “ORC”) to respondent No.3 in respect of Ac.3.23 guntas of land in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Writ Petition No.2722 of 2005: Respondent No.1 before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (Respondent No.2 herein) and appellant in the appeal ﬁled before respondent No.1, ﬁled this Writ Petition questioning the two orders dated 6-8-1994 and 31-3-2001 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. As both these Writ Petitions are ﬁled questioning the common orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, they are heard and being disposed of together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two Writ Petitions, are mentioned hereunder: Respondent No.3 ﬁled a claim petition on 13-9-1998 for grant of ORC under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) in respect of Ac.6.09 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.468 and the above-mentioned Survey Numbers, along with an application for condonation of delay. While condoning the delay, the claim petition was referred to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar, by respondent No.2 for sending a report after conducting preliminary enquiry. After obtaining report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, respondent No.2 held enquiry. Having considered the respective pleadings of respondent No.3, the petitioner and respondent No.4 and on the basis of the material available before him, including the statements of the parties recorded in the enquiry, respondent No.2 partly allowed the claim petition of respondent No.3 and declared that she is entitled for grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Act for an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and respondent No.4 ﬁled separate appeals under Section 24 of the Act, which were dismissed by respondent No.1 by a common order dated 31-3- 2001. The petitioner and respondent No.4 ﬁled Writ Petition Nos.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 respectively against the said orders. The Respective Pleadings: The case of respondent No.3 is that one Gokari Papaiah was the common ancestor. He had four sons, by name, Pedda Chennaiah, Chinna Chennaiah, Pedda Anthaiah and Chinna Anthaiah. Pedda Chennaiah died issueless. Chinna Chennaiah had three sons, viz., Sayanna, Mallaiah and Narayana, all of whom died. Pedda Antaiah had two sons, by name, Chennaiah and Lingaiah. Vittalaiah, the husband of respondent No.3, is the son of Gokari Chennaiah. Chinna Antaiah had one son by name Pentaiah. Respondent No.4 is the son of Gokari Mallaiah, who represents the branch of Gokari Chinna Chennaiah. The father-in-law of respondent No.3 was the protected tenant of the said land, which was an inam land, and there is a long standing dispute between her father-in-law and Gokari Mallaiah, the father of respondent No.4, regarding the protected tenancy. According to respondent No.3, her father-in-law had been in continuous possession of the said land as a protected tenant prior to the relevant date, viz., 1-11-1973 and also on the said date as a protected tenant. After the death of her father- in-law, her husband-Vittalaiah succeeded to the property and subsequent to the death of her husband, respondent No.3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner is that his father-Basharat Ali was the inamdar. The property being maﬁ inam is not covered by the provisions of the Act. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner came into possession of the land as inamdar and the same was cultivated by diﬀerent tenants. Originally, the land was leased out to Gokari Chennaiah S/o.Papaiah. According to the petitioner, Gokari Chennaiah is the grand-father of respondent No.4 and not the father-in-law of respondent No.3 and the father-in-law of respondent No.3 was never in possession as a tenant. The land in question is a service inam and respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights at all. The plea of respondent No.4 is similar to that of the petitioner. According to him, his grand-father Gokari Chennaiah s/o.Papaiah was the protected tenant and not the father-in-law of respondent No.3. The Contentions: Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions: 1) Respondent No.2 failed to properly determine the true nature of inam. As the property is a service inam, the same is excluded from the purview of the Act. 2) Respondent No.2 committed a jurisdictional error in adjudicating the complicated issue of succession, which is not within his jurisdiction, and declaration of respondent No.3 as the person entitled to ORC on the basis of such adjudication, cannot be sustained in law; and 3) Even conceding the existence of such jurisdiction in respondent No.2, his ﬁnding, based on a report obtained from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, cannot be sustained. Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4, supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further contended that under Rule 6 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for short “the Rules”) it is the duty of respondent No.2 to make a suo motu enquiry even in the absence of any application ﬁled by any person for grant of ORC and respondent No.2 failed to consider the issue from the said perspective. Respondent No.2, contends the learned counsel, ought to have granted ORC in favour of respondent No.4 even in the absence of a formal application ﬁled by him for the said purpose. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3, opposing the said contentions, submitted that respondent No.2 has gone into the nature of inam and gave a clear ﬁnding to the eﬀect that Survey Nos.469 to 471 are Makhta lands, which are included within the deﬁnition of ‘inam’ in Section 2 (c) of the Act; that the Act being a special enactment, which empowered the Tribunals constituted therein to adjudicate the respective claims and confer rights over the property, is a self-contained code and respondent No.2 is conferred with the speciﬁc power under Section 10 to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which claims are made by inamdar, Kabiz-e- kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant; and that the power of authorizing any oﬃcer not below the rank of Tahsildar to hold enquiries is also speciﬁcally conferred by Section 30 of the Act. He, therefore, contended that there is no illegality either in respondent No.2 deciding on the succession or in calling for a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and placing reliance on the same, while deciding the issue of succession. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner having not even made a claim for grant of ORC cannot be permitted to raise contradictory pleas by maintaining on the one hand that his father was the holder of inam and, hence, is entitled to grant of ORC and, on the other, respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for grant of ORC as the land is a service inam land which falls outside the purview of the Act. The Provisions of the Act: Before dealing with the speciﬁc contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Finding that the Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act, 1952 (for short “the 1952 Act”) was inadequate to protect the interests of inamdars, the Act is made by repealing the 1952 Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons shows that the Act is provided for: (1) abolition of all inams other than village service inams and inams held by religious and charitable institutions; (2) full assessment being charged for such abolished inams; (3) the retention by the inamdar as well as his tenants of lands under their personal cultivation to the maximum extent of the land allowed under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricult ural Lands Act , 1950; and (4) giving adequat e compensat ion for t he lands resumed from t hem. The deﬁnit ions of inam, inamdar, Kabiz-e- kadim, non-prot ect ed t enant , permanent t enant and prot ect ed t enant , deﬁned under Sect ions 2(1) (c), (d), (e) (g) (h) and (j) respect ively, read as under: “2(1) (c). ‘Inam’ means land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor and continued or conﬁrmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the village records and includes – (i) arazi maktha, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and (ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records: Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas the expression inam shall not include such lands as have not been recognized as inams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs. (d) ‘Inamdar’ means a person holding as inam or a share therein, either for his own beneﬁt or in trust and includes the successor in interest of an inamdar, and – (i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot, his lawful guardian, (ii) where an inamdar is a joint Hindu family, such joint Hindu family; (e) ‘Kabiz-e-Kadim’ means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue. (g) “Non-protected tenant” means a tenant other than a permanent tenant or “protected tenant”. (h) “Permanent Tenant” means a person who, from the date prior to 10th June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement; and (j) “Protected Tenant” means the protected tenant as deﬁned in the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950”. Section 3 provides for abolition and vesting of inams in the State with eﬀect from the date of vesting and also provides for consequences of such vesting. Section 4(1) provides for registration of inamdars as occupants of all inam lands other than the lands mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. Clause (b) excludes lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act from being registered in favour of the inamdars. An inamdar is entitled to such registration in respect of the lands, which were under his personal cultivation immediately before the date of vesting subject to the limit, as regards the extent, prescribed therein. First proviso to Section 4(1), which was added by A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1994 (for short “the 1994 Amendment Act”), which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: “Provided that where inams are held by or for the beneﬁt of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than those speciﬁed in clauses (a) and (c) above without restriction of extent to four and half times the family holding, and without the condition of personal cultivation”. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 enable Kabiz-e- kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants to get registered as occupants of the lands in respect of the inam lands, which were in their respective possession and their personal cultivation subject to the limit regarding the extent as prescribed in the said provision. Section 10, which empowers the Collector to examine the nature and history of the lands while considering the claims for registration as occupants, reads as under: “10. Enquiry by Collector in certain cases:- The Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which an inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as the case may be, and decide— (a) In whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands, the claims should be allowed; (b) The land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands. Section 24 provides for appeals from orders passed under Section 10 to the prescribed authority and the decision rendered by the appellate authority under the said provision shall be final. The Rules provide for procedure to be followed in the matter of entertaining applications for and holding enquiries into grant of ORC. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure for making enquiries either suo motu or on receipt of application by the Collector into the claim for grant of ORC. Analysis: Let me now consider t he cont ent ions advanced by t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. The ﬁrst cont ent ion is based on t he premise t hat if t he land was a service inam or an inam held by a religious and charit able inst it ut ion, respondent No.2 is denuded of t he jurisdict ion t o ent ert ain t he claim pet it ion and grant ORC. This cont ent ion is based on t he St at ement of Object s and Reasons cont ained in t he Act , which, however, overlooked t he ﬁrst proviso t o Sect ion 4(1) of t he Act , which is reproduced supra. Under t he said provision if t he land was an inam held by or for t he beneﬁt of a charit able and religious inst it ut ion, t he inst it ut ion alone shall be ent it led t o be regist ered as an occupant of all inam lands ot her t han t hose speciﬁed in clauses (a) and (c) of Sect ion 4(1) of t he Act . As not iced above, t he said proviso was insert ed by t he 1994 Amendment Act and t hough t he St at ement of Object s and Reasons expressed t he int ent ion of t he legislat ure t o exempt t he village service inams and inams held by religious and charit able inst it ut ions from abolit ion, in t he face of t his speciﬁc provision int roduced by way of t he aforement ioned proviso it is not open t o t he pet it ioner t o plead exclusion of t he jurisdict ion of respondent No.2 t o consider grant of ORC even in respect of inams held by t he inst it ut ion. The only limit at ion placed by t he Act in respect of such inams is t hat except t he inst it ut ion, no ot her person is ent it led t o be regist ered as an occupant . In Aswini Kumar Vs. Arabinda Bose1) Pat anjali Sast ri, C.J., speaking for t he majorit y of t he Court , held t hat t he St at ement of Object s and Reasons appended t o t he Bill should be ruled out as an aid t o t he const ruct ion of a St at ut e. This view was reit erat ed by t he Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Subodh Gopal2) and Central Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen3). In State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India4), t he Supreme Court held: “It is, however, well-settled that the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill, when introduced in Parliament, cannot be used to determine the true meaning and eﬀect of the substantive provisions of the Statute. They cannot be used except for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of aﬀairs leading up to the legislation”. In view of t he set t led legal posit ion as above, t he int ended exclusion of t he inam lands held by t he religious or charit able inst it ut ions is not conclusive and t he lands in quest ion, even if t hey were held by such an inst it ut ion, falls wit hin t he purview of t he Act . The nature of the lands: A perusal of t he order of respondent No.2 shows t hat he called for a report from t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and considered t he report sent by t he lat t er. He referred t o t he ent ries in t he P.T. Regist er for t he year 1951 showing t he lands in Survey Nos.468, 469, 470 and 471 as ‘Pat t a’ in t he name of Mir Mahmood Ali; Set hwar of Budvel village for t he year 1963 summoned from t he Assist ant Direct or of Survey and Land Records, which classiﬁed Survey No.468 as ‘Sarkari’ and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 as ‘Panmakht a’ ; and cert iﬁed copy of Khasra Pahani showing Survey No.468 as ‘Pat t a’ in t he name of Mir Mahmood Sha Pahadi, and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 as “Maﬁ Inam” st anding in t he name of Mir Mahmood Sha Pahadi. On t he basis of t hese ent ries in t he revenue records and also report dat ed 19-8- 1989 sent by t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar, respondent No.2 concluded t hat while t he land in Survey No.468 is ‘Sarkari’, t he land comprised in rest of t he t hree Survey Numbers, referred t o above, is classiﬁed as ‘Panmakht a’. He relied on t he deﬁnit ion of inam in Sect ion 2(c) and held t hat ‘inam’ also includes ‘Makht a’. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, however, relied on t he order passed by t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar in proceedings dat ed 19-8-1989 bet ween respondent s 3 and 4, wherein, while holding t hat t he fat her of respondent No.4 was never in possession of t he lands and t hat Sri Gokari Chennaiah is ent it led for prot ect ed t enancy cert iﬁcat e and t he respondent s t herein (branch of Respondent No.3) were in cont inuous and unint errupt ed possession of t he land for over more t han four decades, t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer declined t o grant P.T. Cert iﬁcat e on t he ground t hat t he lands were recorded as “Maﬁ Inam” in t he revenue records; and held t hat in view of t he bar cont ained in Sect ion 102(c) and (d) of t he A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricult ural Lands Act , 1950 (for short “t he 1950 Act ”) t he proper remedy for t he part ies was t o approach t he Inams Tribunal t o get pat t a right s in respect of t he land. It is no doubt t rue t hat , as per t he ﬁnding of t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, t he land was “Maﬁ Inam” and t reat ed as belonging t o charit able inst it ut ion. But t he fact remains t hat no charit able inst it ut ion has come forward t o claim ORC. Indeed, t he pet it ioner is not assert ing his right t hrough t he charit able inst it ut ion. His claim is t hat his fat her was t he inamdar. So long as he does not eit her represent t he charit able inst it ut ion or make a claim t hrough it , t he ﬁnding of respondent No.2 t hat t he land is an inam land falling under t he provisions of t he Act does not in any manner aﬀect his right s. If t he pet it ioner’s fat her were t o be t he inamdar, as claimed by t he pet it ioner, not hing prevent ed him from applying for ORC. If we closely analyze his st and as reﬂect ed from t he aﬃdavit , while claiming t hat his fat her was t he inamdar, he admit t ed t hat Gokari Chennaiah S/o Papaiah was t he t enant . The pet it ioner’s st and is rat her equivocal and self-defeat ing. As discussed above, in order t o get ORC, he should plead and prove t hat he represent s t he inamdar, who was in personal cult ivat ion of t he propert y as on t he not ified dat e. While he raised a vague plea t hat his fat her was t he inamdar, he admit t ed t hat Gokari Chennaiah was in personal cult ivat ion. This plea it self disent it les t he pet it ioner t o claim ORC, because even if his claim t hat his fat her was t he inamdar is accept ed, in t he face of his own admission t hat Gokari Chennaiah was in occupat ion of t he land, he fails t o sat isfy t he essent ial condit ion of being in personal cult ivat ion st ipulat ed under Sect ion 4(1) of t he Act . Added t o t his, t he pet it ioner complicat ed his own case furt her by advancing a self-defeat ing cont ent ion based on t he ﬁnding of t he