IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1572 OF 2008 Between: Kammari Narayana. --- Appellant/ Respondent/ Plaintiff. AND Manne Muthyalu and another. --- Respondents/ Appellants/ Defendants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1572 OF 2008 JUDGEMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. to set aside judgement and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.74 of 1997, on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, preferred against judgement and decree passed in Original Suit No.382 of 1990, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, filed for delivering the scheduled property and for awarding Rs.3,000/- towards past and future measne profits on the basis of occupancy certificate claimed to be issued under the Inam Abolition Act, vide proceedings No.L/3300/1986 in May, 1989 by a competent authority where as the suit was decreed accordingly on 09- 06-1997. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No.382 of 1990. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The opposite party claims absolute rights in the property. 4. In the judgment, the I Additional District Judge observed as follows: “Furthermore, while issuing the certificate under Inams Abolition Act an enquiry has to be conducted, and interested parties have to be given an opportunity to present their case and without such an action unilateral grant of patta in favour of the appellant cannot be taken as valid. From the material placed by the defendants, his possession cannot be taken as untrue and in fact, the plaintiff admits the prosecution but limits the same from 1986. It is pertinent to note that the document filed by the appellant does not show any opportunity was given to the defendants and an enquiry was held by the Revenue authorities about the factual possession as on 1973. When at the time of hearing of arguments this aspect was drawn to the attention of the counsel for the respondent, except asserting that such an enquiry was held there is no material placed before the Court. Therefore, evidently, the certificate obtained by the plaintiff is behind the back of the appellant and the civil Court cannot blindly recognize it, when valuable rights are involved. In a decision reported in Commissioner of Survye, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad and others, Appellants V. Kunsam Saranarayana and others[1], it was held that when the decision of Tahsildar, Revenue Court or a Collector in granting patta is fraudulent or a spurious document the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Therefore, if the above decision is applied, it clearly goes to show that the appellant was not given any opportunity before taking up enquiry by the Revenue authorities and the order granting the occupancy certificate was suspended by the Joint Collector and in such circumstances that respondent cannot contend that the occupancy certificate is final and he is entitled for recovery of possession of the property. In view of the above circumstances, it has to be held that the claim of the respondent is based on insufficient title and therefore, the decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge is not sustainable.” 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant (Plaintiff in the suit) relying upon decision reported in M. Hanimi Reddy and others Vs. State and another[2] notes on recent cases) that the first appellate Court got no authority to question the certificate. In that decision it was observed : “The claim of the petitioner that he being a Kabiz-e- Kadim is entitled to be registered as occupant under the Act. Inams can be investigated and decided by the Collector alone subject to the final decision of the High Court under section 28 of the Inams Act. Any decision rendered by the Authorities constituted under that Act cannot be called in question by any other authority. In the instant case such a decision has not been arrived at under the Inams Act. The claim of the petitioner is still pending before the Collector in this regard. The jurisdiction to determine this fact having been vested under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act exclusively in the Collector and in as much as Section 29 of the Act declares that the decision of that authority subject to the orders of the High Court can not be called in question by any other authority or even in a civil Court the Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, cannot be deemed to be competent to go into that questions and for the purpose of disposing of the declaration filed before it, proceed to arbitrarily include the land in the holding of the Inamdar or the persons claiming to be Kabiz-e- Kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants or non- protected tenants in the holdings of both of them. Such inclusion would be wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction”. 6. In the decision referred by the appellate Court, it was in fact observed that when the decision of the Tahsildar Revenue Court or Collector is fraudulent or spurious, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred, which can be applied if apparently such a situation arises and such a certificate was not issued by a concerned authority when the authority in question got competency to issue the certificate unless it is cancelled by proper forum it will prevail. Further, the defendants did not file any suit or proceedings before a competent forum to cancel it on the ground of issuing it without following law. It is also contended that he preferred Appeal before competent authority against it and was dismissed about which there is no dispute. 7. Therefore, the order of remand is not tenable and hence it is to be set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] AIR 1997 SC 3867 [2] 1978 (ALT) Page 41