THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.17893 of 2007 Dated:09th August, 2010 Between: 1. K.Bikshapathi & Ors. ….Petitioners and 1. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.17893 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 13 in number, seeking mandamus declaring the action of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad-1st respondent in issuing proceedings No.F1/5821/2006, dated 20.01.2007, and the consequential proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, West Chevella Division at Attapur, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Kummari Lachiga @ Kummari Laxmaiah is the grand father of the petitioners. He was inamdar in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas situated in Survey No.235 of Kowkur village. The said land was classified as Chowta Inam in the revenue records. According to the petitioners, they succeeded to the said land being the legal heirs of inamdar viz., Kummri Lachiga @ Kummari Laxmaiah. They submitted an application in Form-I before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act’). The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, forwarded the application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri Mandal, for preliminary enquiry. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri Mandal, conducted enquiry and submitted his preliminary report vide letter No.B/2180/2005, dated 10.01.2006. The 3rd respondent herein resisted the application filed by the petitioners before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. According to her, she purchased the land from Smt.Balamani through a registered sale deed, document No.3599/92, dated 11.01.1992. The said Smt.Balamani purchased the land from her vendor Neela Veeraiah and the said Veeraiah purchased the land from Kummari Isthariah under a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1970. Prior to alienation of the property, the inamdar obtained ryotwari patta from the Special Tahsildar, Hyderabad, Urban Taluk in file No.C4/7906/69, dated 18.08.1969. Since the date of purchase, 3rd respondent has been in possession of the land as bona fide purchaser. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, by order dated 05.10.2006 granted occupancy rights certificate under Section 4(1) of the Act, in favour of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District assailing the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division. The appellate Authority, on re- appreciation of the material brought on record, allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, by order dated 20.01.2007. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate Authority, which reads as hereunder: “On perusal of the appeal, K.Istharaiah S/o.Siddiah, K.Narsimha S/o.Rajaiah, K.Agaiah S/o.Laxmaiah, K.Balaiah S/o.Ramaswamy, K.Bhikshapathy S/o.Mallaiah have jointly executed a registered sale deed in favour of Neela Veeraiah S/o.Ramaiah to an extent of 0.37 gts. in Sy.No.235 of Kowkur village, Malkajgiri Mandal, vide registered document No.1828/70, dated 18.6.70. In turn, Neela Veeraiah S/o.late Ramaiah has executed in favour of Smt.Blamani W/o.M.M.Reddy who again executed a registered sale deed vide document No.3599/92, dated 1.6.92 in respect of Sy.No. & extent in favour of S.P.Sumitranath w/o.S.V.Prithviraj i.e, the appellant herein. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of Sy.No.235 admeasuring 0.37 gtas situated at Kowkur village, Malkajgiri Mandla, in favour of the respondents herein in the capacity as successors of purported inamdar. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant herein preferred the present appeal. It is evident that predecessors–in–interest of the present appellant have executed the Registered sale deed as discussed above. In turn the registered holder has sold away the land and subsequent transactions took place in respect of the land in question. If the possession is enjoyed by a third party, as of right, with the acquiescence and approval of a person who is staking a claim for Occupancy Rights Certificate, or his successors, a claim for occupancy by such person is impermissible. It is not as if the principle of estoppel and acquiescence are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. If a person staking a claim for Occupancy Rights Certificate himself inducts a 3rd party into possession of the property, or, is a party to a transaction, directly or indirectly, for such transfers, he cannot turn around, negate the transaction and seek Occupancy Rights Certificate. If such a course of action is permissible, the whole object of the Act becomes defeated and becomes a tool in the hands of indiscriminate persons, to take innocent purchasers for a ride. In the instant case, the predecessors–in-interest of the respondents have sold the property to appellant and there after have obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate. Having sold the property, the respondents cannot maintain a claim for Occupancy Rights Certificate. As such the claim of the respondents for rights of occupancy is untenable and barred by the principle of estoppel. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in file No.L/105/2006, dated 05.10.2006 is set aside.” The petitioners submitted another application before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, in Form-I for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the selfsame land. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, by order dated 12.04.2007 revoked the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners herein in File No.L.105/06, dated 05.10.2006. Hence, this Writ Petition by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 20.01.2007 passed by the appellate Authority and the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the primary authority. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder: “5. It is submitted that the land in question is classified as Chowta Inam and Occupancy Right Certificate was not obtained by our grand father. It is clearly shows that my grand father was not sold the property. We are in possession and enjoyment of the said land due to the ignorance of procedure we have not obtained the Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of the above said land. We had filed application before the Revenue Divisional officer (RDO), West Chevella Division in file No.L./105/2006. The RDO passed orders in our favour on Dt.5.10.2006 and issued Occupancy Right Certificate in our favour, the respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Joint Collector, R.R. District in file No.F1/5821/2006, the Hon’ble authority passed orders on 20th January, 2007 setting aside the orders of the RDO. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners mistakenly filed appeal before the RDO against the Joint Collector’s order. The RDO entertained the appeal in file No.L./475/2007 and passed orders on dt.12.4.2007. The RDO confirming the orders of the Joint Collector order. But, it is not a valid order because the RDO has not a appellate authority of Joint Collector. Hence, it is not a valid order and it is illegal.” 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 28.08.2007. 4. Heard leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that land bearing Survey No.235 admeasuring Ac.0.37 gts situated at Kowkur village is classified as Chowta Inam and the grand father of the petitioners was inamdar and he continued to be in possession of the land till his death and thereafter, the petitioners came into possession of the land being his legal representatives and therefore, they are entitled for occupancy rights certificate under the provisions of the Act. A further submission has been made that the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District granted occupancy rights certificate in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioners under proceedings dated 05.10.2006 after due enquiry and in which case, the appellate authority is not justified in upsetting the order of the primary authority in granting occupancy rights certificate in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel refers the Pahani Patrikas filed for the years 1955 to 1958 and 1976-77, 1982- 83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2000-2001, 2001- 02, 2002-03 and 2006-07 to buttress his submissions that the name of the grand father of the petitioners has been recorded in the Khatadar column for the years 1955 to 1958, 1976-77, 1982-83 and 1983-84. 6. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the 1st petitioner is one of the executants of the sale deed, dated 18.06.1970 in favour of Neela Veeraiah and he being one of the executants of the sale deed, cannot be permitted to contend that the sale deed is not valid and not binding on him. 7. The order passed by the appellate authority i.e, Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District-1st respondent gives a clear picture of the transactions that have been effected in respect of the land from the year 1970. The 1st petitioner herein along with Kummari Istharaiah, Kummari Narasimha, Kummari Agaiah, and Kummari Balaiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of Neela Veeraiah on 18.06.1970. The said Neela Veeraiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Balamani on 19.12.1978 in respect of the land and thereafter, the said Balamani executed a registered sale deed in favour Smt.Sumitranath-3rd respondent on 11.06.1992. Indisputably, the land in question is Chowta inam and Kummari Lachia @ Kummari Laxmaiah was the inamdar. 8. Under Section 2(d) of the Act, ‘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; 9. In S.Veera Reddy & Anr. V. Ch.Chandraiah[1], a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, whether inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of any third person in spite of abolition of imams? It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that transfer of inam land by inamdar after abolition of imams under an agreement of sale is not illegal. Paras.23 and 24 of the judgment need to be noted and they are: “23. It would be relevant to note here that the consequences of abolition of Inams contained in clause (b) like other consequences, is subject to the express savings by or under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Inams Abolition Act provides one such exception. This section enacts that where before the date of vesting, an inamdar has created, either by way of lease or otherwise, any right in any inam land which vests in the State other than the lands speciried in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, including rights in any forest, mines or minerals, quarries, fisheries, or ferries, the transaction shall be deemed to be valid and all rights and obligations arising thereuner, on or after the date of vesting, shall be enforceable by or against the Government, provided that the transaction was not void or illegal under any law in force. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 empowers the Government to terminate the right, by giving notice to the person concerned, with effect from such date as specified in the said notice, where such right was created in any lands, other than the lands specified in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4. Sub- section (2) of Section 11 provides for payment of compensation by the Government to the person whose right has been terminated by the Government. It would also be pertinent to note here clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, which reads thus: “3.(2)(i) the inamdar, kabize-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and a non-protected tenant of inam lands and any person holding under them and a holder of an inam, shall as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for under this Act and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to any of them in the inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar shall cease and shall not be enforceable against the Government or the inamdar.” The above extracted provision provides that the inamdar, kabiz-e- kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and a non-protected tenant of inam lands and any person holding under them and a holder of an inam, shall, as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for under the Act and any other rights and privileges, which may have accrued to any of them in the inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar, shall cease and shall not be enforceable against the Government or the inamdar. 24. From the above discussion what follows is that, notwithstanding abolition of imams, an inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of any third person and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights and that such a transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of the Act.” 10. In B.Venkaiah v. RDO, Kothagudem[2], a learned single Judge of this Court referred the judgment of the Division Bench in S.Veera Reddy’s case (1 supra) and held that purchaser of inam land covered by the Act could make an application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. 11. The material placed on record clearly established that the 1st petitioner along with four others sold the land to Neela Veeraiah under a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1970. Having sold the land, it is impermissible for him to contend that he is still continued to be in occupation of the land. Even the Pahani Patrikas, on which reliance has been made, do not speak of the possession of any one of the petitioners. Indeed, from the year 1982-83 in the possessor column Smt.Balamni’s name has been reflected. The contention of the petitioners that as on 01.11.1973, the land was in their occupation has not been substantiated by any material. The appellate authority having taken note of all these facts proceeded to cancel the occupancy rights certificate issued in faovur of the petitioners herein. The petitioners instead of challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, tried their luck once again by moving another application before the primary authority. The primary authority having taken note of the orders passed by the appellate authority, proceeded to revoke the occupancy rights certificate issued earlier. As I stated above, the 1st petitioner being one of the executants of the sale deed in favour of Neela Veeraiah cannot contend that he is still continued to be in possession of the land. Therefore, the order passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority does not suffer from any serious illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.17893 of 2007 Dated:09th August, 2010 [1] 1995 (2) ALT 172 (D.B.) [2] 1999 (2) An.W.R. 100