THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.23071 of 2002 Dated:13th July, 2010 Between: 1. V.GovardhanReddy & Anr. ….Petitioners and 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.23071 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by V.Govardhan Reddy and M.Budda Mallaiah seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Pro.No.B/1477/2002, dated 31.10.2002, of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrit-2nd respondent and the letter in Rc.No.1708/2002, dated 10.06.2002, of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy & Medak Districts at Hyderabad-3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioners claim that one Smt.Paruri Narasamma was the Inamdar of lands bearing Survey No.96 admeasuring Ac.2.23 gts; Survey No.97 admeasuring Ac.0.04 gts.; and S.No.98 admeasuring Ac.3.29 gts, situated in Japal Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said Narsamma died in the year 1956. After her death, her son Paruri Sesha Chary inherited the above referred lands. The 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.04 gts. in Survey No.97 and Ac.3.29 gts. in S.No.98 situated at Japal village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the said P.Sesha Chary on 26.08.1989 for a valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/-. Whereas, the 1st petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.23 gts. in S.No.76 situated at Japal village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as a protected tenant. According to the petitioners, Sri Hanuman and Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Japal village, is nothing to do with the lands owned by P.Narsamma. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are not put on notice in respect of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer para.10 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder: “10. It is therefore, necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Pro.No.B/1477/2002, dt.31.10.2002 of the 2nd respondent herein and the letter in Rc.No.1708/2002, dated 10.06.2002 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice violatve of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that as per the Amendment Act, 1994 to the Act, 1955, no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the 1st petitioner has submitted a petition in Form No.I along with Pahanies and requested for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of Sy.Nos.76 (Ac.0.30) and 76 (Ac.2.00) situated at Japal village, Manchal Mandal and whereas the 2nd petitioner has also submitted a petition in Form No.1 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of Sy.Nos.97 (Ac.0.14) and 98 (Ac.3.29) situated at Japal Village, Manchal Mandal. The lands in question pertain to the temple and recorded as such in the name of Sri Hanuman Temple and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that what is challenged in the Writ Petition is only a consequential order for implementation of the occupancy rights certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division-1st respondent and that unless the original proceedings are challenged, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being in occupation of the lands are entitled for occupancy rights certificate under the provisions of the Act. A further submission has been made that the occupancy rights certificate has been granted in favour of the 4th respondent without serving any notice on the petitioners and therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, with regard to grant of occupancy rights certificate in favour of the 4th respondent cannot be sustained. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the lands in question are owned by the temple and it is only the temple which is entitled for occupancy rights certificate. 7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to refer Section 4 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “4. Registration of Inamdars as occupants:- (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than – (a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers; (b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act; (c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar; 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. (“Provided that where imams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 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: Provided further that where any person other than the concerned charitable or religious institution has been registered an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1985 such registration shall and shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall given to such registration.”] (2) No inamdar shall be registered an occupant of any land under sub- section (1) unless he pays to the government premium an amount equal to twenty five times the difference between the jodi or quit-rent, if any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such 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. (3) The inamdar 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 time limit specified in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not. (4) Omitted. Objects and Reasons for omitting the sub-section 4. Sub-section (4) of the Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Provides that, if the lands for the purpose of registration of inamdar as occupant are required to be resumed to make up the deficiency to the extent of 3 family holding, the same shall be resumed under the provision of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in the order provided thereunder. The rights of an inamdar to resume land to make up deficiency to the extent of 3 family holdings under the above said provision works out to the disadvantage of permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants in the case of inam lands. The Government have therefore decided to suitably amend the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. (vide L.A. Bill 2 of 1986, Published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-A (Ext.), dt.28.2.1986).” 8. Indisputably the lands in question belong to the Sri Hanuman and Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple. Under the proviso to Section 4, where the imams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions, no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act 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]. In view of the specific proviso, the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that they are entitled for occupancy rights certificate in respect of the lands owned by the temple. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason. The petitioners do not choose to challenge the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, whereunder the request of the petitioners for grant of occupancy rights certificate has been rejected. In view of the same, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits it is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:13th July, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.23071 of 2002 Dated:13th July, 2010