THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7117 of 2010 April 16, 2010 Between: Ponna Durga Reddy, S/o.Penta Reddy And another … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7117 of 2010 ORDER: Second respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy (RDO); exercising the powers as Inams Tribunal under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act) granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved by the order of RDO dated 10.9.2007, petitioners filed appeal under Section 24 of the Act. The same was dismissed on 10.3.2010 by first respondent. This is challenged in the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that the land admeasuring Acs.0.19 guntas in survey No.113 of Pothireddipally Village of Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District is khidmat (service) inam, which stood in the name of Smt.Chandramma, W/o.Ramanna. She was recorded as inamdar and possessor in khasra pahanis of the years 1972-1973 and 1996-1997. Petitioners statedly purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 05.1.1981. Petitioners filed application for ORC before the RDO. The same was granted on 15.7.1998. Aggrieved thereby, third respondent filed appeal before the first respondent. The same was allowed on 31.1.2006 and the matter was remanded to RDO. After remand, RDO granted ORC in favour of third respondent, who claimed himself to be protected tenant entitled to 60 : 40 share in the land. As noticed supra, petitioners’ appeal was dismissed by the Joint Collector. The counsel for petitioners submits that RDO did not conduct enquiry properly and he failed to call for the Protected Tenancy (PT) register even though the Joint Collector has remanded the matter for verification of the same. As per Section 102 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Tenancy Act), the grant of ORC in respect of service inam lands is prohibited. The order of the Joint Collector is without reasons and is unsustainable in law. He also placed reliance on Maltan Sangaiah v Patel Eswarappa[1] and Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Jagdish Sharan Varshney[2]. Per contra, the Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submits that the Joint Collector gave valid reasons after verifying the records, that the sale in favour of petitioners by alleged inamdar is itself void and that the question whether contesting respondents were in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973 being a question of fact, writ petition would not lie. The submission that the Joint Collector did not give any reasons cannot be accepted. In an enquiry by the Inams Tribunal or the appellate authority while granting ORC the question is whether grant of ORC is prohibited under relevant provisions and the person claiming ORC was in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973. There was no argument before the RDO or Joint Collector that ORC cannot be granted in respect of the land. Therefore the only question was who was in possession of the land. Dealing with this aspect, Joint Collector observed as follows. Accordingly the RDO, Sangareddy passed the impugned order on 10.9.2007 in file No.B3/Inams/443/2007. The RDO, Sangareddy in his orders has recorded that the counsel for respondents (counsel for the appellants in the instant case) has insisted for supply of PT register on 31.08.2007 and it was informed that the PT register is not available and as such the counsel requested to verify the Khasra Pahani and pass orders and the counsel for appellant therein (respondent No.1 herein) also agreed to this. Accordingly the RDO after having record and after hearing both parties came to the conclusion that Rami Reddy, S/o.Laxma Reddy Jampala was PT as per the true extract of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 over the land in Sy.No.113 admeasuring Acs.0.18 gts. He further observed that the said Rami Reddy being the Protected Tenant is entitled @ 60 : 40 share and the appellant being the legal heir is only entitled to get ORC to an extent of Acs.0.11 gts., in Sy.No.113. A certified copy of the true extract of PT Register prepared in the year 1951 the name of Jampala Rami Redy is recorded as Protected Tenant in Col.No.9 whereas the counsel for appellants has contended that the RDO did not call the Tenancy Record from MRO, Sangareddy whereas the RDO has clearly recorded in the impugned orders that the counsel has requested to pass orders according to the record i.e., Khasra Pahani 1954-55. The reasons are valid and this Court fails to understand what more reasons are to be given in a summary enquiry while granting ORC. The decision of Supreme Court in Jagdish Sharan Varshney (supra) deals with the duty of appellate authority to give reasons even while confirming the order of original authority. Therefore, it does not assist the counsel for petitioners. Petitioners admittedly purchased the land from Smt.Chandramma – inamdar; under registered sale deed dated 05.1.1981. As held by the Supreme Court in Lokraj v Kishan Lal[3], the sale of inam land by a person who is allegedly in occupation even before grant of ORC is void because from the date of coming into force of the Act i.e., on 20.7.1955, the inms stand abolished and inam land absolutely vests in the State. Therefore the person in occupation has only right to claim to ORC and he has no alienable right. I n Lokraj (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows. 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) In view of the decision of Supreme Court, petitioners have no right to claim ORC and as found by the Joint Collector, father of third respondent was shown as protected tenant. As per Section 102 of Tenancy Act inapplicable to certain classes of land including service inam land and the person who is a protected tenant in respect of service inam land may not have right under the Tenancy Act, but subject to the proviso to Section 4(1) of Inams Abolition Act, even a protected tenant is entitled to be registered as occupant of inam land. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to admit writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April , 2010 YS [1] 1997(4) ALT 724 [2] (2009) 4 SCC 240 [3] (1995) 3 SCC 291