IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:23962 of 2001 Between: 1 A.Laxmaiah, (Died) per LRs S/o. Mallaiah R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.Arundhati Bai (Died) R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. 3 A.Srinivas, S/o. Late A.Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. 4 A.Chandra Mohan, S/o. Late A.Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. 5 A.Mahinder, S/o. Late A.Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. 6 Smt.A.Madhavi, D/o. Late A.Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No.94-A, Azampura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector, (Appellate Authority under AP (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act) Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East) Division, Malakunta, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 3 K.Ramachandra Reddy, Major S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Sathi Reddy, Major S/o. K.Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR MR.M.PAPA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: MR. DEEPAK FOR MR. S.BALCHAND The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash orders, dated 26.02.1999 and 30.07.2001 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. The grandmother of the petitioners, by name, Smt. Mangamma, was admittedly the inamdar of the lands admeasuring Acs.4.20 guntas, Ac.1.23 guntas and Acs.6.22 guntas in Survey Nos.85/1, 86 and 87/2 of Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After her death, the father of the petitioners, by name, Sri A.Laxmaiah, applied for Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate (ORC) in respect of the said lands under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the 1955 Act’). During the pendency of the application before the Tahsildar, the petitioners’ father died. The petitioners therefore, came on record. The application for grant of ORC having been rejected by the Tahsildar and granted ORC in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4, they ﬁled appeal before respondent No.2, who dismissed the same vide his order, dated 12.12.1982 and the revision ﬁled by them before respondent No.1 having been dismissed on 29.04.1986, they ﬁled CRP.No.659 of 1988 and by order, dated 07.04.1993, this Court allowed the said CRP and remanded the case to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication. After remand, respondent No.2 re-conﬁrmed his earlier order. Respondent No.1 also dismissed the petitioners’ revision against the said order of respondent No.2. The petitioners, therefore, ﬁled the present writ petition. While disposing of the Civil Revision Petition, this Court gave a prima facie observation that the entry in Khasra Pahani of 1973-74 shows that the inamdar was in possession of the lands in question. With reference to the said entry, it held that by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the objectors can disprove the inamdar’s possession; that the appellate and the revisional authorities have not considered the validity of the unregistered sale deed under the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (for short ‘the 1882 Act’) and that they have not addressed themselves to the question as to and under what provision, a person, who claims to have purchased the land under an unregistered sale deed, is entitled to be considered to grant ORC. In his order, respondent No.2 referred to the purported sale transactions, dated 12.02.1973 and 20.03.1973 and 07.06.1973 and concluded that as the said transactions have been taken place prior to the crucial date, namely, 01.11.1973, respondent Nos.3 and 4 derived interest in the land. He made a reference to Section 11 of the 1955 Act in holding that the sale transaction was prior to the crucial date, namely, 01.11.1973. He relied on the recital in the sale deed and letter, dated 26.02.1997 of the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar to hold that the property was under possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3. Respondent No.1, who passed a detailed order, conﬁrmed the order of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Deepak, learned counsel representing Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and carefully perused the record. In order to claim ORC, the applicant must show that he must be either an inamdar or a successor in interest of inamdar and as on 01.11.1973, he was in occupation of the property. Respondent No.2 in his order categorically found that the pahani for the year 1973-74 contained the name of Smt. Mangamma as inamdar and her name is also mentioned in the possession column. It is pointed out that the said Mangamma died even prior to 1973. Be that as it may, Sri A.Laxmaiah being the son of Smt. Mangamma, even though his name is not mutated in the pahani as successor in interest of the inamdar, he is entitled to claim ORC. But, as far as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, unless there are authentic revenue records to show that as on the relevant date, namely, 01.11.1973, they were in possession, they cannot make any claim for ORC. Their claim to the property hinges on the alleged unregistered sale deed. Under Section 54 of the 1882 Act, “sale” is deﬁned as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. Under the said provision, in the case of tangible immovable property, the value of which is more than Rs.100/- and upwards, transfer can be made only by way of a registered instrument. It is not the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the value of the property in question is less than Rs.100/-. Therefore, unless the sale deed is registered, title or interest in the property does not pass to the purchaser. In the face of the admitted fact that the purported sale transaction was not registered, no title was passed to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and consequently, no interest was devolved on them. To press into service Section 11 of the 1955 Act, the transaction should have been taken place before the date of vesting by which a right either by way of lease or otherwise in any inam land is created by the inamdar in the third party. As the sale deed on which respondent Nos.3 and 4 placed reliance was not registered, it cannot be said that any right is created by the inamdar, who, in this case, is successor in interest of Smt. Mangamma, namely, Sri A.Laxmaiah. There is another angle to this issue. In a recent judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court in CHAMA NARASIMHA REDDY AND ANOTHER v. JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[1], answered a question whether a person who purchased the inam land from an inamdar between 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 can be treated as successor in interest of the inamdar, in paragraph 34 by holding that the sale after 20.07.1955 (on which day, all inams vested in State) by inamdar in favour of the petitioners cannot be recognized in law. The learned Judge, however, held that the right of inamdar to be registered as an occupant on the date of vesting under Section 1(3)(d) of the Inams Abolition Act i.e. 01.11.1973 is a limited restricted right to enjoy the land subject to other rights and privileges as provided under the Inams Abolition Act and that such right does not include, as held by the Supreme Court in LOKRAJ AND OTHERS v. KISHANLAL AND OTHERS[2], the right to transfer the land vested in the State. Though this judgment was not holding the ﬁeld, when this Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition, in view of the ratio laid down in this judgment, respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot make any legitimate claim for grant of ORC as successors in interest of the inamdar. Irrespective of whether the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was registered or not, following the judgment of this Court referred to supra, they cannot claim any right for grant of ORC. In this view of the matter, there is no need to discuss further on the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. As Smt. Mangamma was admittedly the inamdar and the petitioners are successors in interest of the inamdar, whose family was found to be in possession as on 01.11.1973, the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 impugned in this writ petition are quashed. Respondent No.2 shall consider the application of the petitioners and grant ORC in their favour in respect of the lands in question within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] 2007(2) ALD 28 [2] (1995) 3 SCC 291