*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO + WRIT PETITION Nos.3012, 3394 AND 3972 OF 2002 AND 17542 OF 2004; AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4223 OF 2003 %17-11-2006 # Chama Narasimha Reddy and others ...PETITIONERS Vs. $ The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: SRI R.MAHENDER REDDY ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P. FOR URBAN LAND CEILING <GIST >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: 1. 1972(1) ALT 270 (paras 9 and 10) 2. AIR 1974 SC 1480 3. 1993(2) An.WR 84 = 1993(2) ALT 45 (NRC) 4. (1995)3 SCC 291 5. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246 6. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 162 = (1999) 4 Scale 750 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.3012, 3394 AND 3972 OF 2002 AND 17542 OF 2004; AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4223 OF 2003 17.11.2006 Between: Chama Narasimha Reddy, S/o.late Yadagiri and others … Petitioners AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.3012, 3394 AND 3972 OF 2002 AND 17542 OF 2004; AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4223 OF 2003 COMMON ORDER: INTRODUCTION The background facts in all these writ petitions and the civil revision petition are same. The rival claim of the parties – be it petitioners or respondents; is in respect of the same land admeasuring about Acs.55.00 in Survey Nos.210 to 213, 221 to 225 (for the sake of convenience referred to hereinafter as schedule land) situated at Papayyaguda hamlet of Kuntloor village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The contentions raised and the documents relied on are almost the same. It is therefore expedient to pass common order. BACKGROUND FACTS [1] The schedule land and other extents of land (total extent of 300 acres in same survey numbers) originally belonged to one Vakiti Pulla Reddy, husband of eighth respondent. After enactment of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called, the Land Reforms Act), he filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), who is represented by the respondent No.15. He was declared surplus landholder and while doing so in accordance with Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act, land which was in possession of Gaddam Babaiah, Gaddam Somaiah and others, the protected tenants, was excluded because under A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter called, the Tenancy Act), the protected tenants are entitled to statutory protection/ownership rights. It appears the protected tenants or their legal heirs filed necessary applications under Section 10 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereafter called, the Inams Abolition Act) and the Inams Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of land admeasuring about Acs.50.00 in favour of the protected tenants. Insofar as this land for which protected tenants are registered as occupants is concerned, there is not much dispute in these proceedings. The dispute, however, is regarding another piece of land admeasuring about Acs.55.00. This dispute started some time in 1994 as four groups/categories of persons filed four claims before RDO claiming ORC. The petitioners, respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 filed applications under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act before RDO (second respondent). Respondents 16 to 21 claiming themselves to be the legal heirs/successors of another protected tenant joined the dispute at the stage of appeal though they did not file applications before the RDO. The details of these claims are as follows. (i) Inamdars Claim: The eighth respondent, wife of late Pulla Reddy, filed application in Form-I for grant of ORC in respect of land admeasuring Acs.58.01 guntas under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act. The same was dealt with by RDO in File No.J/3245/94, who dismissed the claim on 19.09.1997. Her appeal in F1/6915/1997 was also dismissed by the appellate authority, namely, the Joint Collector (first respondent) on 22.12.2001. Failing to get ORC, the eighth respondent then filed W.P.No.7521 of 2001 but the same was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 23.07.2001. Therefore, the claim made by the legal heir of original pattadar/inamdar no more survives. (ii) Purchasers Claim: In this category, there are two groups. (a) The ninth respondent, namely, Popular Weaker Cooperative Housing Society filed claim petition in Form-I for grant of ORC for the land admeasuring Acs.55.07 guntas alleging that they entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with late Pulla Reddy on 25.08.1982, and therefore, they may be registered as occupants under Section 10 of the Act. The claim of the said Society in File No.J/1398/96 was rejected. They were unsuccessful before the Joint Collector in proceedings in F1/7864/1997, by reason of the orders of the appellate authority, dated 22.12.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the ninth respondent filed W.P.No.3972 of 2002. (b) The petitioners Chama Narsimha Reddy and Chama Pratap Reddy – both are brothers; allege that they purchased land admeasuring Acs.68.00 cents in various survey numbers under an agreement of sale, dated 10.02.1967. They filed their claim petition in Form-I for ORC. The same being J/2740/94 was rejected by the original authority as well as appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.No.3012 of 2002. (iii) Protected Tenants Claim: Respondents 16 to 21 are allegedly another group of protected tenants claiming ORC. They did not file any claim petition before the RDO. Alleging that the application of other tenants was considered without notice to them, they filed appeal against the orders of the RDO before the Joint Collector, who dismissed the same vide proceedings F1/9079/98, dated 22.12.2001. They filed W.P.No.3394 of 2002 seeking a writ of Certiorari. (iv) Authorised Officer’s Claim: As mentioned supra, late Pulla Reddy was declared as surplus holder of agricultural land by the LRT. The legal heirs of protected tenants, namely, Gaddam Babaiah filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT), Ranga Reddy. They sought exclusion of land admeasuring Acs.54.24 guntas including land to an extent of Acs.54.00 for which they obtained ORC under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act. The LRAT remanded the matter on 21.12.1992 to the original authority. Thereafter, the LRT by order, dated 22.06.1994 deleted Acs.54.24 guntas from the total surplus area of Acs.146.42 declared to be surplus holding of declarant, as a result of which, an extent of Acs.91.82 cents in survey Nos.204, 208, 209, 210, 214, 216, 224, 225 and 234 etc.,was ordered to be in the custody of the Government. Again, Gaddam Narsimha and others (LRs of PTs) filed appeal being LRA No.267 of 1994. This was allowed by LRAT on 01.04.1995 directing to delete an extent of Acs.107.31 cents (including Acs.54.24 guntas, for which ORC was issued) from the total holding of the declarant Pulla Reddy. In consequential surrender proceedings, LRT deleted an extent of Acs.53.07 guntas from the surrendered land. This was challenged by eighth respondent in C.R.P.No.661 of 1996, which was allowed on 10.11.1999 restoring order of the LRT, dated 22.06.1994 deleting only Acs.54.24 guntas. At that stage, the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms) filed appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act, also assailing order of the RDO granting ORC for Acs.54.24 guntas in favour of the legal heirs of Gaddam Babaiah. The same was rejected by the Joint Collector by the common order, dated 22.12.2001 in proceedings No.F1/6906/A/97. Aggrieved by the same, the Authorised Officer, who is arrayed as respondent No.15 in W.P.No.3012 of 2002, filed C.R.P.No.4223 of 2003 under Section 28 of Inams Abolition Act. ORDER OF RDO/INAMS TRIBUNAL For better appreciation of various contentions raised by the learned counsel for rival parties, it is necessary to briefly notice the sum and substance of the claims, the points considered by RDO and order dated 19.9.1997 passed on the claim petitions. Before the RDO, the petitioners, respondent No.9 (alleged purchaser) and respondent No.8 (inamdar) claimed ORC. After receiving the claim petitions, the RDO issued general notice as well as personal notice in Form-II to the claimants as well as persons claiming to be protected tenants or their legal heirs. Respondent No.8 filed petition objecting grant of ORC to petitioners inter alia on the ground that the claim of the petitioners was already rejected on 20.06.1989, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector on 17.12.1994. In her own application, she also claimed to be in personal cultivation and occupation of the schedule land in support of her claim for ORC. Respondent No.9 based his claim on an alleged agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1982 by late Pulla Reddy in its favour for claiming ORC. The claim petitions were referred to Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) to submit a report thereon. The MRO submitted report vide letter No.D/1989/94, dated 12.08.1994 (hereafter called, the first report for clarity). The MRO reported that the lands are classified as Dastagirdhan (land vested in State), that as per pahani 1973-1974 Chama Pratap Reddy, Punnaiah and Karimsab were in possession of the land and as per the record of rights, the lands are in possession of the inamdar. The MRO also reported that as per the pahani 1993-1994, Chama Pratap Reddy and Chama Narsimha Reddy are shown to be in possession of the schedule lands. Whatever be the reason, the MRO, Hayathnagar, again submitted another report vide letter No.B/5338/96, dated 26.08.1996 (hereafter called, the second report, for clarity) and reported that as per the records, Vakiti Pulla Reddy was inamdar, that as per pahani for the year 1974-1975 Vakiti Pratap Reddy, Narsimha Reddy an Mallaiah were shown to be in possession of the lands, but as per his local enquiry, late Gaddam Babaiah was the tenant with longstanding possession till his death in 1983, and that after his death, Babaiah’s five sons, Mallesh, Krishna, Sailoo, Somaiah and Durgaiah were in physical possession of the lands. The MRO also recommended to issue ORC to Gaddam Mallesh and others. The claimants relied on two reports of MRO in support of their claims. Taking into consideration that the first report and the second report of MRO as well as the entire records, RDO came to the following conclusions: (i) the schedule land is Dastagirdhan (inam land); (ii) the eighth respondent i.e., inamdar, did not produce any clinching evidence to show that the land was under her personal cultivation on the date of vesting, i.e., 01.11.1973[2], hence, her claim has to be rejected; (iii) the ninth respondent did not produce any positive evidence to show that possession was delivered to the cooperative society under the alleged agreement of sale, dated 25.08.1982 and therefore, not entitled for ORC; and (iv) Gaddam Mallesh and others, the legal heirs of Gaddam Babaiah, who are in possession and cultivating the schedule land, are entitled to get ORC. ORDER OF JOINT COLLECTOR In addition to the appeals filed by the petitioners, respondent No.8 and respondent No.9, there were also appeals filed before the Joint Collector by respondents 16 to 21 and appeal filed by Authorised Officer, Ranga Reddy District. By a common order, the Joint Collector disposed of all the appeals in favour of respondents 10 to 14. The Joint Collector framed two issues. They are (1) Whether the petitioners or respondents 10 to 14 are entitled for ORC in respect of schedule land admeasuring Acs.56.13 guntas? and (2) What is the extent of surplus land held by Pulla Reddy declared by LRT and what relief that is the Authorised Officer and Legal Representatives is entitled for? Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the Joint Collector came to the following conclusions. (i) The inamdar, Vakiti Sattemma (respondent No.8), failed to prove her possession over the schedule land and that she is not entitled for relief under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act; (ii) The petitioners interpolated their names in the revenue records as possessors by manipulating the records, that when enquiry was conducted into the claim petition filed by the protected tenants, the objection petition filed by the petitioners was rejected by the original authority as well as the appellate authority and, therefore, their request for grant of ORC cannot be considered; (iii) Respondents 16 to 21 are not entitled for ORC as they are claiming possession based on invalid documents and that there is nothing in the records to prove the contention that their ancestor was tenant of the lands; (iv) The claim of Popular Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society (respondent No.9), does not fall within the ambit of any one of Sections 4 to 8 of Inams Abolition Act and that Vakiti Pulla Reddy was never in possession of the lands on the date of vesting i.e., 20.7.1955 in respect of the lands in survey Nos.210 to 213, 221 to 223; and (v) Gaddam Babaiah and after his death his legal heirs were in possession of the schedule lands as evidenced by Kowlnama and report of the MRO and, therefore, the grant of ORC by RDO in their favour does not warrant interference by the appellate authority. Issue No.2 exclusively concerns with the appeal filed by the Authorised Officer being No.F1/6906/A/97. The said appeal was filed under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act challenging the grant of ORC in favour of Madugula Punnaiah, Mohammed Khasim Ali, Smt.Kanta Bai and Gaddam Narasimha and others. It appears that by proceedings dated 28.12.1979, the RDO granted ORC to Madugula Punnaiah to an extent of Acs.28.04 gunas in survey Nos.204, 208 and 209. The appeal was also against the proceedings of the RDO dated 19.9.1979 whereby and whereunder ORC was granted to legal heirs of protected tenant. The proceedings of the RDO dated 08.11.1992 granting ORC in favour of Kanta Bai and proceedings of the RDO dated 05.2.1986 granting ORC in favour of Mohd. Khasim Ali, were also subject matter of the appeal filed by the Authorised Officer. After making elaborate reference to the proceedings before the LRT and LRAT and noticing that the land declared by Vakiti Pulla Reddy to be in possession of protected tenants, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by the Authorised Officer insofar as it challenged grant of ORC in favour of Madugula Punnaiah and in favour of the legal heirs of protected tenants. The Joint Collector, however, set aside the ORC granted in favour of Smt.Kanta Bai and Mohd. Khasim Ali (they are not parties in these writ petitions) on the ground that the declarant, Vakiti Pulla Reddy, either in his declaration or deposition before the LRT, did not mention about the agreement of sale in favour of these two persons. As noticed in the beginning aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector insofar as it went against them, the Authorised Officer filed C.R.P.No.4223 of 2003. Respondents 10 to 14 (in W.P.No.3012 of 2002) filed separate writ petition being W.P. No.17542 of 2004 challenging the order of the Joint Collector insofar as the same upheld granting ORC in favour of Madugula Punnaiah. It is mainly contended by them that Madugula Punnaiah has nothing to do with the land and that all along Gaddam Sailoo or Sayamma, the ancestor of respondents 10 to 14, was the protected tenant of the land. Son of Madugula Punnaiah is arrayed as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17542 of 2004. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL Learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3012 of 2002, Mr.R.Mahender Reddy, submits that the petitioners purchased schedule property from inamdar and they were inducted into possession. This was also reflected in the relevant revenue records especially pahanis for 1963-1964, 1973-1974 and 1993-1994. In the first report submitted by the MRO, Hayathnaar Mandal, this fact was noticed. The original authority as well as appellate authority rejected the first report without any reason but, gave undue importance to the second report submitted by the MRO. He would urge that the second report has no sanctity in law and, therefore, rejection of ORC for the petitioners based on the second report is contrary to the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and illegal. Secondly, he contends that the inamdar, Vakiti Pulla Reddy, filed declaration under Land Reforms Act being C.C.No.1180/T/75. While considering the declaration in its proceedings dated 05.8.1976, LRT, Hyderabad (East), has noticed that lands in survey Nos.204 to 219 and a part of land in survey No.232 are sold to the second petitioner much prior to coming into force of Land Reforms Act and prior to date of vesting under Inams Abolition Act. He also submits that Vakiti Pulla Reddy gave statement before the LRT to that effect and hence rejection of the claim of the petitioners for ORC is unsustainable. Learned Counsel further submits that the Original Authority erroneously came to a conclusion that the records have been tampered by interpolating the names of the respondents without even furnishing the copies to the petitioners, which is illegal. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 (petitioner in W.P.No.3972 of 2002), Sri K.Raghuveera Reddy, made submissions to the following effect. Respondent No.9 is entitled for grant of ORC for schedule land by reason of the agreement of sale executed by inamdar. After obtaining agreement, the society has executed sale deeds in favour of 412 members of the society, who are now in possession of the land as per pahani 1991-1992. The land was declared before LRT that the land0 has been sold by Pulla Reddy. There cannot be any iota of doubt that the society alone is in possession of the land. Respondents 10 to 14 or their predecessors were not shown to be the occupants as per pahani for the year 1954-1955, as found by the MRO while submitting the first report but the original authority as well as appellate authority erroneously granted ORC in favour of respondents 10 to 14. Learned counsel for respondents 16 to 21 (petitioners in W.P.No.3394 of 2002), Sri M.Damodhar Reddy, assails the impugned order insofar as the same denies ORC to his clients. He submits that respondents 16 to 21 are protected tenants of the schedule lands, who are in possession of the lands as per revenue records. When respondents 10 to 14 filed a suit being O.S.No.154 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, though initially ad interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.6004 of 1999, the same was modified by this Court in C.M.A.No.1326 of 2000 ordering status quo and therefore, the RDO ought not to have granted ORC in their favour. After abolition of inams in Telangana area, only those persons who are found to be in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 (the date of vesting) would be entitled for ORC. The respondents 10 to 14 did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim and therefore, grant of ORC in their favour, who are not in possession as on 01.11.1973, is itself illegal and against Section 6 of Inams Act. Learned counsel for the respondents 10 to 14, (petitioners in W.P.No.17542 of 2004 and respondents 7 to 11 in C.R.P.No.4223 of 2003), Sri A.Pulla Reddy, impugns only the order of the appellate authority – Joint Collector; in appeal No.F1/6906/A/97 (which was filed by Authorized Officer), insofar as the same upheld the order/proceedings of the RDO, dated 28.12.1997, whereby and whereunder Madugula Punnaiah – the immediate predecessor of third respondent in W.P.No.17542 of 2004 was granted ORC in respect of land admeasuring Acs.28.04 guntas in survey Nos.204, 208 and 209. He submits that ORC was granted to Madugula Punnaiah by the RDO without notice to the actual protected tenants or the legal heirs. He would urge that Madugula Punnaiah has nothing to do with the land in respect of which Gaddam Babaiah and Gaddam Sailoo were already granted ORC, in respect of which ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act was given for an extent of Acs.54.24 guntas. He also submits that the observation made by the Joint Collector insofar as Acs.53.07 guntas to the effect that they were not declared by Pulla Reddy to be in possession of protected tenants is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling, appearing for respondent No.15 and petitioner in C.R.P.No.4223 of 2003, submits that the impugned order granting ORC in favour of respondent No.3 and respondents 7 to 11 in the C.R.P. without notice to Authorised Officer is illegal. He points out that in the absence of any declaration by late Pulla Reddy that land admeasuring about Acs.110.00 was in possession of protected tenants, RDO ought not to have granted ORC without verifying the genuineness of Kowlnama and pahanis for the relevant period. Learned Government Pleader, however, does not dispute that the protected tenants were granted certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, but he contends that mere grant of ownership certificate cannot be a ground to issue ORC under Inams Abolition Act. Learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents in C.R.P. opposed revision petition filed under Section 28 of Inams Abolition Act as not maintainable. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The background facts and the rival submissions would give rise to the following points for consideration. (1) Whether petitioners and respondent No.9 are entitled for ORC based on the agreements of sale executed by Vakiti Pulla Reddy? (2) Whether the grant of ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.No.3012 of 2002 is not valid? (3) Whether respondents 16 to 21 are entitled for ORC in respect of land to an extent of Acs.56.13 guntas in S.Nos.210 to 213 and 221 to 223? (4) Whether the ORC granted to Madugula Punnaiah, father of the third respondent in W.P.No.17542 of 2004, is not valid? (5) Whether the C.R.P. No.4223 of 2003 filed by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, under Section 28 of the Act, is maintainable? In Re Points 1 to 3 Inams Abolition Act applies to Telangana area of State of Andhra Pradesh. It is made applicable to all inams as defined in Section 2(1) (c) of the Act. The Act seeks to abolish all inams besides providing for registration of certain categories of holders as occupants of the land. Inamdars[3] (Section 4), Kabize-e-khadim[4] (Section 5), Permanent tenants[5] (Section 6), Protected tenants[6] (Section 7) and Non- protected tenants[7] (Section 8) are five categories of persons, who can be registered as occupants as per Section 10 of Inams Abolition Act. So as to claim ORC, these persons have to prove that as on the date of vesting, such person is in occupation of the inam land. Inams Abolition Act came into force with effect from 20.7.1955. Therefore, as per Section 2(1)(b)(i)[8] read with sub-section (1) of Section 3, all imams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State with effect from 20.7.1955. The Act was repealed by A.P. Act 8 of 1967, which was challenged before this Court. In Jagannadha Rao v State of A.P.[9], this Court declared 1967 Act as void. However, in Mohd. S.H.Khan v State of A.P.[10], the Supreme Court held that the original Act of 1955 could not have said to have been repealed. As a result of this, Inams Abolition Act got resurrected. In the mean while, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under Section 1(3)(b), notifying 01.11.1973 as the date of vesting for the purpose of Section 2(1)(b)(ii). Therefore, for determination of occupancy rights, the date shall have to be reckoned as 01.11.1973 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramender Reddy v The District Collector, Hyderabad District[11]. A passing reference may also be made to the nature of enquiry to be conducted by the RDO/Inams Tribunal while considering the application of any of the category of the persons for grant of ORC. The said provision is to the effect that the RDO shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a claimant is to be registered as an occupant. Therefore, all matters connected with the history of the land, whether they are under the Tenancy Act or Land Reforms Act, form important evidence in considering a particular claim by any category of persons claiming ORC. A question often would arise whether a person who purchased the inam land from the inamdar between the