IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.24035, 24036 and 24070 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 24035 of 2008 Between: Godala Mohan Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Rangareddy District at Gohsamahal, Hyderabad. 3 Byagari Yadaiah, s/o. Late Papaiah, R/o. Mall Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rangareddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No. F1/6126/2006 dated 09-9-2008 and quash the set- aside the same being illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of AP(TA) Abolition Inams Act 1955. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 24036 of 2008 Between: Dongthani Mallamma W/o. Late Buchaiah R/o. Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector - I Ranga Reddy Dist. Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer East Division Ranga Reddy Dist. at Gohsamahal, Hyderabad. 3 Byagari Yadaiah S/o. Late Papaiah R/o. Mall Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.F1/6124/2006 dated 09-09-2008 and quash and set-aside the same being illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of A.P.(T.A.) Abolition Inams Act 1955. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 24070 of 2008 Between: Smt. Islavath Sulthaana, W/o. Subhani, R/o. Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Rangareddy District at Gohsamahal, Hyderabad. 3 Byagari Yadaiah, s/o. Late Papaiah, R/o. Mall Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rangareddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No. F1/6123/2006 dated 09-9-2008 and quash the set- aside the same being illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of AP(TA) Abolition Inams Act 1955. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.24035, 24036 and 24070 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: As these writ petitions are filed against the common order passed by the first respondent under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and the factual background being the same, it is proper to dispose of these three matters by this common order. The petitioner in W.P.No.24035 of 2008 purchased an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas in survey No.569 situated at Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Rangareddy District, under a registered sale deed, dated 09.09.1982 executed by M/s.Giri Muthaiah and three others. The petitioner in W.P.No.24036 of 2008 purchased an extent of Ac.1.16 guntas of land in survey No.568 of same village from the same vendor under a different sale deed of same date. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.24070 of 2008 purchased an extent of Acs.3.00 of land in survey No.569 of same village under a registered sale deed, dated 04.03.1997 executed by Smt.Gandikota Shanthamma. After obtaining the sale deeds, they obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under Section 10(1) of the Act on 27.02.1998. The third respondent, who claims to be the son of the original inamdar, filed appeals against ORC given to the respective petitioners and others. The appeals, being F1/6126/2006, F1/6124/06 and F1/6123/06, were heard along with other connected appeals. By a common order, dated 09.09.2008, the Joint Collector allowed the appeals observing that the sale of land in favour of the petitioners even before grant of ORC is a nullity and that the petitioners or their vendors were not in possession as on 01.11.1973 and that the third respondent and his predecessors were cultivating the land as on the crucial date for determination of occupancy rights. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent committed an error in entertaining the appeals filed in 2006, after a delay of about eight years. Secondly, he submits that the first respondent did not even verify the records before deciding the appeals and therefore, the findings are not supported by any evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the sale deeds executed by the vendors in favour of the petitioners cannot be doubted, as the father of the third respondent is one of the attesters to the documents. Opposing the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-TA) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the third respondent submit that the petitioners purchased the land even before grant of ORC and therefore, the sale deeds are nullity. Secondly, they would contend that as a fact the third respondent and his predecessors were in occupation of the land as on 01.11.1973. Therefore, they are only entitled to ORC. The petitioners in these writ petitions admittedly are not original inamdars. They purchased their respective extents of lands from four persons, who claim to be the inamdars. But, when they approached the Inams Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent) for ORC, it appears, they did not adduce any evidence to show that their vendors had already obtained ORC. The fact that the petitioners themselves approached the Inams Tribunal and obtained ORC would show that, by that time, the original inamdars were not recognized as persons having occupancy rights and therefore, the sale deeds are nullity. Be it noted, with effect from 20.07.1955, when the Act came into force, by virtue of Section 3 of the Act the land vested in the State and the inamdars had no right to alienate the property, unless the proper ORC was issued in their favour. Secondly, there cannot be any dispute that those persons who are in occupation of the land as on 01.11.1973 are alone entitled to ORC. As a fact, the first respondent recorded that the petitioners were not in possession as on 01.11.1973. Dealing with this aspect in Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1], after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Lokraj v. Kishan Lal[2], this Court 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 imams with effect from 20.07.1955 and the Government declared 01.11.1973 as the date of vesting for the purpose of Sections 4 to 8. Therefore, though all the imams stood abolished and the land vested in the State free from encumbrances with effect from 20.07.1955, 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 20.07.1955, 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 20.07.1955 when he became incompetent to transfer the property. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the third respondent’s father, late Papaiah, being the signatory the sale deeds cannot be doubted, is misconceived. Even if the father of the third respondent is an attester of the sale deeds, it has no relevancy in the absence of any proof that the vendor/inamdar had already obtained ORC by the date of execution of sale deeds. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.11.2008 GJ [1] 2007 (2) ALD 28 = 2007 (3) ALT 265 [2] (1995) 3 SCC 291