THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24040 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.28 guntas in survey No.140 and Acs.6.00 guntas in survey No.141 of Dulapally Village of Qutbullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, petition schedule land). He claims that three decades ago inamdar of petition schedule land in survey No.141 (Acs.6.00 guntas) inducted him as lessee. In 1965, he allegedly purchased the said land from V.Ranga Reddy, original inamdar. He alleges that one Durgam Chandraiah, predecessor of respondents 2 to 6, also claimed the land but he executed Deed of Disclaimer in 1981. In 1987, two suits were filed on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner filed O.S.No.459 of 1987 against Durgam Chandraiah for injunction and the latter filed O.S.No.433 of 1987 against the petitioner and his sons for delivery of possession. At that stage, petitioner having come to know that Durgam Chandraiah was granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity), vide proceedings No.M/116/75, dated 30.01.1981, filed an appeal before first respondent under Section 24 of the Act. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by an order, dated 23.10.1990, allowed the appeal, set aside ORC granted on 30.01.1981 and remanded the matter to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Chandraiah filed W.P.No.1136 of 1991 questioning the same. By an order, dated 12.12.1997, writ petition was disposed of remanding the matter to District Collector, who was directed to consider the question of limitation also and dispose of the appeal after giving notice to both sides. In the meanwhile, O.S.No.433 of 1987 filed by Chandraiah was decreed observing that he shall be entitled for possession if he gets ORC. Be that as it is, after the matter was remanded, the Joint Collector dismissed appeal for default on 30.07.2005. However, on an application made by petitioner and also in view of order of this Court in W.P.No.3113 of 2006, the appeal was restored. By impugned order, appeal having been dismissed, present writ petition is filed. The appeal filed by petitioner against grant of ORC to predecessor of respondents 2 to 6 was dismissed by Joint Collector on the ground that the appeal is filed in 1987 when ORC was granted in 1981 without filing an application for condonation of delay, that the petitioner, who is not in possession of the land and who is not personally cultivating the land, is not entitled for grant of ORC, that Chandraiah was in possession of the land as on the date of vesting for the purpose of grant of ORC and that all the legal heirs of late Chandraiah were not brought on record. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner being successor in interest/alienee in respect of inam land is also entitled for ORC and even any such alienee is vested interest in limited sense. He relies on Kodithala Keshavulu v Government of A.P.[1], S.Veera Reddy v Ch.Chandraiah[2], S.Narasimha v Joint Collector-II[3] and N.Padmamma v S.Ramakrishna Reddy[4]. Pointing out paragraph 19 in the last mentioned citation, learned counsel would urge that the decision in Lokraj v Kishan Lal[5], which took the view that an inamdar who is not given ORC cannot transfer his right and alienee, if any, cannot claim ORC is not correctly decided. Secondly, it is submitted that in the absence of re-grant in favour of Legal Heirs of Chandraiah, the ORC granted to petitioner on 09.04.1998 is legal and valid. His third submission is that the order of Joint Collector is perverse in that though there is abundant evidence on record to show that petitioner was in possession of land as on the relevant date i.e., 01.11.1973, the finding was recorded contrary to evidence. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 submits that petitioner who claims to be alienee from inamdar is not entitled for ORC. He relies on the decision of this Court in Chama Narasimha Reddy v Joint Collector[6], which was a decision, rendered relying on Lokraj (supra). He nextly contends that Joint Collector recorded finding of fact that it was Chandraiah who was in possession of land as on 01.11.1973 and petitioner was not in possession of land and such a finding cannot be interfered with in a writ petition for certiorari. Petitioner was allegedly inducted as a lessee some time prior to 1965. In that year, the original inamdar, Ranga Reddy, sold the land to petitioner. The Act abolished all inams and vested inam lands free from all encumbrances in the Government as on 20.07.1955. By that date, Ranga Reddy had no alienable right. Unless a person falls within any of the categories as per Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, such a person cannot claim ORC. A person, who claims to be alienee from inamdar, after 20.07.1955 cannot claim ORC. Dealing with this aspect in Chama Narasimha Reddy (supra), it was held as under. Reading of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 read with 10 of Inams Abolition Act would show that so as to be registered as occupant of agricultural inam land, different categories of persons have to show that as on the date of vesting they were in possession of such land in whatever capacity they claim. The Inams Abolition Act abolished inams with effect from 20.7.1955 and the Government declared 01.11.1973 as the date of vesting for the purpose of Sections 4 to 8. Therefore, though all the inams stood abolished and the land vested in the State free from encumbrances with effect from 20.7.1955, all the persons who were in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 are entitled for ORC. If a person claims to be successor in interest of inamdar by reason of a sale after 20.7.1955, such sale cannot be recognized for the simple reason that from that date, the land vested in the State and all rights to inam land stood abolished. The inamdar had therefore no right to transfer the property to a third party after 20.7.1955 when he became incompetent to transfer the property. Under Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act, the property of any kind may be transferred but as per Section 6(d), an interest in the property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred by such owner. It may be noticed that under Section 3(2)(g) of Inams Abolition Act, an inamdar or any other person whose rights have been vested in the State under Section 3(2)(b), shall be entitled to only compensation as provided under the Inams Abolition Act and different categories of occupants are entitled to such rights and privileges subject to such conditions as provided under the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, though after the date of vesting the occupants or inamdars are entitled to continue to be in occupation, they are entitled to transfer such limited interest to enjoyment to third parties. The question whether a sale of inam land by inamdar after the date of vesting is valid or not, is no more res integra. In Lokraj (supra), Supreme Court considered the effect of abolition of inams and vesting of land in the State by reason of which the right in the land stood transferred to the State. In that case, respondent had filed a suit for partition of certain lands some of which were inam lands, on a preliminary question, the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, took the view that even in respect of inam lands a suit for partition is maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the view of the High Court and held as under. Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory operation unless re-grant is made. We are not concerned with the consequences that would ensue after re- grant of this appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the question that may arise after the re-grant. (emphasis supplied) Supreme Court also considered the question whether right to claim partition is also lost after abolition of inams. Answering this in the affirmative, it was held as under. The learned Senior Counsel, placing reliance on Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v Balgonda Kalgonda Patil[7] and Shivappa Tammannappa Karaban v Parasappa Hanammappa Kuraba[8] contended that the right to claim partition has not been lost, though inam has been abolished. We find no force in the contention. Therein, after abolition of the watan re-grants were made in favour of watandars. In view of the pre-existing watans burdened with service of watandar as per pre-existing law, excluded the junior members of the family to claim partition, was abolished and re-grant was made to the watandar, after the re-grant the property became the joint family property. So the coparceners of the Hindu joint family were held entitled to lay the suit for partition and civil court has jurisdiction to grant decree of partition by metes and bounds pro rata. That ratio has no application to the facts of this case. When re-grant is made and in what capacity the re-grant would be made is a matter to be considered and decided in terms of the re-grant. I n N.Padmamma (supra), Lokraj (supra) was doubted and a two- Judge Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench. When a binding decision of Supreme Court is doubted and it is referred to a larger Bench by a Bench of equal strength, in the considered opinion of this Court, the precedent value and binding nature of the earlier decision is not lost. As on today, the principle in Lokraj (supra) is binding on this Court. Therefore, the contention of senior counsel for respondents 2 to 6 that the petitioner had no right to claim ORC nor he could maintain appeal has to be upheld. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel that in the absence of re- grant, ORC given to his client is valid is misconceived. Admittedly Chandraiah was granted ORC, aggrieved by which petitioner preferred appeal in 1987. When the entire issue of grant of ORC to Chandraiah or rival claimants was at large and ultimately ORC issued to him by reason of orders of RDO, dated 30.01.1981 was confirmed, it is futile to contend that in the absence of any ORC in favour of legal heirs, petitioner’s right would revive. As already observed supra, petitioner had no right to claim ORC and therefore, he could not have relied on ORC allegedly issued to him in 1998. Secondly, no such plea was taken before Joint Collector and in certiorari proceedings, such a plea cannot be allowed for fishing out errors in the order of decision maker who had no opportunity to consider such questions. The plea of counsel for petitioner that the order of Joint Collector is perverse cannot be accepted. This Court has carefully perused the impugned order. To be fair to the Joint Collector, it must be held that all points raised by petitioner in the appeal were considered, with reference to the principles of law and the provisions of the Act. Attention of this Court has been invited to Pahanis for the year 1971-1972, in support of the contention that petitioner was in possession of the petition schedule land. Xerox copy of the Pahani for 1971-1972 annexed to the writ petition is not at all legible. It is not possible to correlate the same to survey No.141 admeasuring Acs.6.00 guntas. Secondly, petitioner also enclosed a Memo, dated 12.02.1997 issued by Tahsildar, Qutbullapur. According to this, in the Pahanis for the years 1961-1962, 1963-1964, 1964-1965, 1966-1967, 1967- 1968, 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1977-1978 and 1979-1980, there was no mention of name of petitioner, namely, Durgam Sreeramulu and that there were corrections in those Pahanis, for which reason certified copies cannot be supplied. This itself belies the case of petitioner and strengthens the finding of Joint Collector that through the crucial period in 1973-1974, petitioner was not in possession of land and that Durgam Chandraiah was cultivating the land. The petitioner’s counsel has not raised any further submission. In certiorari proceedings, the Court of judicial review cannot interfere on the plea that there are perceived errors. It is only grave errors apparent on the face of record that warrant issue of certiorari. While examining a case, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and disturb the findings of decision maker. If the decision maker – be it original authority or appellate authority; has considered factual background and applied principles of law correctly, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued. In this case, Joint Collector has considered all aspects and correctly came to the conclusion. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .01.2009 pln [1] 1978 (2) An.W.R. 31 [2] 1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB) [3] 2006 (2) ALD 621 [4] 2008 (TLS) 46399 (SC) [5] (1995) 3 SCC 291 [6] 2007 (2) ALD 28 : 2007 (3) ALT 265 [7] 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246 [8] 1995 Supp (1) SCC 162 = (1994) 4 Scale 750