* 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 Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and (4) giving adequate compensation for the lands resumed from them. The deﬁnitions of inam, inamdar, Kabiz-e- kadim, non-protected tenant, permanent tenant and protected tenant, deﬁned under Sections 2(1) (c), (d), (e) (g) (h) and (j) respectively, 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 the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The ﬁrst contention is based on the premise that if the land was a service inam or an inam held by a religious and charitable institution, respondent No.2 is denuded of the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and grant ORC. This contention is based on the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Act, which, however, overlooked the ﬁrst proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act, which is reproduced supra. Under the said provision if the land was an inam held by or for the beneﬁt of a charitable and religious institution, 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) of Section 4(1) of the Act. As noticed above, the said proviso was inserted by the 1994 Amendment Act and though the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressed the intention of the legislature to exempt the village service inams and inams held by religious and charitable institutions from abolition, in the face of this speciﬁc provision introduced by way of the aforementioned proviso it is not open to the petitioner to plead exclusion of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to consider grant of ORC even in respect of inams held by the institution. The only limitation placed by the Act in respect of such inams is that except the institution, no other person is entitled to be registered as an occupant. In Aswini Kumar Vs. Arabinda Bose1) Patanjali Sastri, C.J., speaking for the majority of the Court, held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill should be ruled out as an aid to the construction of a Statute. This view was reiterated by the 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), the 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 the settled legal position as above, the intended exclusion of the inam lands held by the religious or charitable institutions is not conclusive and the lands in question, even if they were held by such an institution, falls within the purview of the Act. The nature of the lands: A perusal of the order of respondent No.2 shows that he called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and considered the report sent by the latter. He referred to the entries in the P.T. Register for the year 1951 showing the lands in Survey Nos.468, 469, 470 and 471 as ‘Patta’ in the name of Mir Mahmood Ali; Sethwar of Budvel village for the year 1963 summoned from the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, which classiﬁed Survey No.468 as ‘Sarkari’ and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 as ‘Panmakhta’ ; and certiﬁed copy of Khasra Pahani showing Survey No.468 as ‘Patta’ in the name of Mir Mahmood Sha Pahadi, and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 as “Maﬁ Inam” standing in the name of Mir Mahmood Sha Pahadi. On the basis of these entries in the revenue records and also report dated 19-8- 1989 sent by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar, respondent No.2 concluded that while the land in Survey No.468 is ‘Sarkari’, the land comprised in rest of the three Survey Numbers, referred to above, is classiﬁed as ‘Panmakhta’. He relied on the deﬁnition of inam in Section 2(c) and held that ‘inam’ also includes ‘Makhta’. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, however, relied on the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar in proceedings dated 19-8-1989 between respondents 3 and 4, wherein, while holding that the father of respondent No.4 was never in possession of the lands and that Sri Gokari Chennaiah is entitled for protected tenancy certiﬁcate and the respondents therein (branch of Respondent No.3) were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land for over more than four decades, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer declined to grant P.T. Certiﬁcate on the ground that the lands were recorded as “Maﬁ Inam” in the revenue records; and held that in view of the bar contained in Section 102(c) and (d) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the 1950 Act”) the proper remedy for the parties was to approach the Inams Tribunal to get patta rights in respect of the land. It is no doubt true that, as per the ﬁnding of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the land was “Maﬁ Inam” and treated as belonging to charitable institution. But the fact remains that no charitable institution has come forward to claim ORC. Indeed, the petitioner is not asserting his right through the charitable institution. His claim is that his father was the inamdar. So long as he does not either represent the charitable institution or make a claim through it, the ﬁnding of respondent No.2 that the land is an inam land falling under the provisions of the Act does not in any manner aﬀect his rights. If the petitioner’s father were to be the inamdar, as claimed by the petitioner, nothing prevented him from applying for ORC. If we closely analyze his stand as reﬂected from the aﬃdavit, while claiming that his father was the inamdar, he admitted that Gokari Chennaiah S/o Papaiah was the tenant. The petitioner’s stand is rather equivocal and self-defeating. As discussed above, in order to get ORC, he should plead and prove that he represents the inamdar, who was in personal cultivation of the property as on the notified date. While he raised a vague plea that his father was the inamdar, he admitted that Gokari Chennaiah was in personal cultivation. This plea itself disentitles the petitioner to claim ORC, because even if his claim that his father was the inamdar is accepted, in the face of his own admission that Gokari Chennaiah was in occupation of the land, he fails to satisfy the essential condition of being in personal cultivation stipulated under Section 4(1) of the Act. Added to this, the petitioner complicated his own case further by advancing a self-defeating contention based on the ﬁnding of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in the proceedings under the 1950 Act between respondents 3 and 4 that the religious institution is the inamdar and that, therefore, respondent No.2’s jurisdiction is ousted. In either case, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of ORC as he does not satisfy the requirement of being in personal cultivation to claim ORC under Section 4, if his plea as inamdar is accepted; and he not being the inamdar, if the institution is held to be the inamdar. Irrespective of who between respondents 3 and 4 represents the branch of Gokari Chennaiah, who was in personal cultivation of the land in question, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of ORC, in either of the two events as discussed above. In this view of the matter, the question whether the nature of the inam was a service inam or an inam granted for the beneﬁt of a charitable institution or not pales into insigniﬁcance qua the petitioner and it is not necessary for this Court to interfere with the finding of respondent No.2 to the eﬀect that the land being a “Panmakhta Inam” falls within the deﬁnition of ‘Inam’ at the instance of the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of the Act provide for adjudication of the claims of the inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim and tenants, both protected and non- protected, and confer occupancy rights on those who are found to be entitled to grant of such rights. The Act is, thus, a substantive piece of legislation, which provides for abolition of inams and confers rights over them after abolition. For adjudicating the competing claims, the Collector is empowered under Section 10 of the Act to examine the nature and history of all lands and decide in whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands, the claims should be allowed; and the land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands. The decision of the appellate authority is given finality under Section 24 of the Act. While dealing with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 a Larger Bench, consisting of ﬁve Judges, of this Court in T.Munuswami Naidu (died) and others Vs. R.Venkata Reddy and others5) held that the said Act was intended to be a self- contained Code and to be self-suﬃcient