Telangana High Court
B. Pedda Chennaiah vs Bazar Or Chakali Jangaiah on 26 October, 2022
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1582 of 2021
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in File No.F2/IA-32/2010 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners herein against the orders dated March, 1991 in File No.K/570/91 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, was dismissed.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated March, 1991 held that the lands in question are classified as Chowtha Inam and Chakali Balaiah is the Inamdar. The Revenue Divisional Officer after examining the records and the evidence produced before him held that the declarants are the legal heirs of the Inamdar and they are in possession of the suit lands as on the date of vesting. One Pedda Jangaiah son of Balaiah appeared before him and stated 'no objection' for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) to the declarants. As no other objections received in response to the notice, the Revenue Divisional Officer ordered for 2 registering the declarants as occupants of the land mentioned under Section 4(1) of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1955') subject to payment of the premium provided under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1955 and accordingly further ordered to issue certificate in Form No.III. 3 The said issuance of ORC in favour of the applicants was challenged by the petitioners-appellants herein before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. The Joint Collector after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the parties observed that the appeal was filed with the delay of 19 years 113 days without explaining proper reasons. The appellants relied upon the reference of the Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal, in Ref.No.A/290/2010 dated 14.07.2010 in which they stated that they came to know about issuance of ORC in favour of the respondents only after receipt of the reference. But the Joint Collector observed that as per the Distribution Register for the year 2010 it is revealed that the Distribution Number 290 of 2010 was allotted to application filed by J.Chandraiah, son of Narsimulu for issue of caste certificate and as such the delay is not explained properly and not convincing. The Joint Collector further observed that the 3 contention of the petitioners-appellants that the lands in Sy.Nos.32, 43, 44, 255, 256, 257 and 282 totally admeasuring Ac.19.11 guntas situated at Boinapally Village of Midjil Mandal, were allotted for the benefit of Chakali caste is not established by any documentary evidence. Moreover, as per the pahani for the year 1973-74 the lands were classified as Chowtha Inam and Chakali Baliga, Lachiga and others were recorded as Inamdars and possessors over the subject lands. As the appellants failed to file relevant documentary evidence to establish their possession as on 01.11.1973, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners-appellants herein preferred this revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. The case of the revision petitioners herein is that they are the appellants before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. Originally B.Pedda Chennaiah and three others filed the appeal under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 against issuance of ORC in File No.K/570/1991 dated March, 1991 for an 4 extent of Ac.19.11 guntas situated at Boinapally Village, Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The land was recorded in Old Sy.Nos.201 and 202 but after survey and settlement, the said land was renumbered as Sy.Nos.32, 43, 44, 255, 256, 257 and 282. The appellants would submit that the land in the above survey numbers is an extent of Ac.38.19 guntas and they are Inam lands and that the said lands were allocated for the benefit of the families belonging to Chakali caste who were washing the clothes of the villagers. There are three families in the village of Boinpally Village. The petitioners-appellants herein belong to Budharam family and the respondents belong to Bazar and Boddumalle family. All the families were represented by the elders viz., Chakali (Buddaram) Baliga son of Chennadu, Chakali (Bazar) Baliga son of Saiga and Chakali (Boddumalle) Buchiga son of Narsaiah and their names were recorded as Inamdars and possessors of the said lands in the revenue records and in the Sessala Pahani of the year 1955-56 and they were cultivating the lands equally and each piece of land is easily distinguishable from each other land. Today also the petitioners-appellants are in possession and enjoyment of 5 their one third share of the land out of the total extent of Ac.38.19 guntas and as they are illiterates, they did not know about the procedure and the nature of the lands and were doing own cultivation. Inam was issued in the name of the caste and the land was popularly known as Chakali Vani Bhavi and Chakali Vani Chelka. In the pahanies also the names of the petitioners-appellants were recorded as possessors. The petitioners would submit that they came to know that their names were not recorded in the pattadar column and the pahani in the year 2008 for which they approached the Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal, for incorporating their names in the pahanies with File No. A/290/2008. Thereupon, the Tahsildar issued notices to the respondents, conducted enquiry on 14.07.2010 and thereafter issued an endorsement in the said file stating that in the year 1992 itself the respondents obtained ORC from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in respect of the said lands and directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the Joint Collector. Immediately, the petitioners-appellants herein approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, obtained certified copy of two orders in File No.K/570/1991 dated March, 1991 6 for an extent of 19.11 guntas situated at Boinapally Village, and in File No.K/4455/1988 dated 28.11.1988 for an extent of Ac.19.08 guntas and filed an appeal before the Joint Collector within time from the date of knowledge.
6. The petitioners-appellants herein pleaded that they are one third shareholders in an extent of Ac.38.19 guntas. To support their contention they filed relevant revenue records such as Sessala Pahani for the year 1955-58 as well as the pahani of 1973-74 in which in the occupants column it was mentioned as Chakali Baliga, Buchiga Vagaira (others) and it clearly shows that all three families were in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.13.26 guntas, which is their one third share in the entire lands.
7. The respondents herein filed suit O.S.No.54 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar District, seeking declaration and recovery of possession against the ancestors of the petitioners herein in respect Ac.13.26 guntas in all survey numbers, which was dismissed for default on 19.11.2012 and it clearly establishes that the petitioners herein are in possession over the suit 7 land till today. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioners herein and no opportunity was afforded to the ancestors of the petitioners and the respondents obtained ORC behind the back of the petitioners.
8. The petitioners would submit that after receiving notices from the Joint Collector, respondents filed their counter and pleaded that appeal is barred by limitation as it was filed nearly after 22 years of issuance of ORC. In the counter the respondents submitted that Inam was granted only in respect of two families and that the families of the petitioners are strangers to the village. The respondents also pleaded that there is no Munthaqab filed by the petitioners to establish that they are the legal heirs of Baliga and further stated that grant was not made for Chakali caste and it was made only for individuals. The Joint Collector took nearly nine years to dispose of the appeal and during the pendency of appeal some of the appellants died and finally he dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
9. The petitioners-appellants herein mainly contended that they came to know about issuance of ORC only basing 8 on the endorsement file dated 14.07.2010 and they filed the appeal within thirty days from the date of knowledge and that the Joint Collector has not discussed about the endorsement of the Tahsildar in his order and passed the order mechanically, though they filed pahani for the year 1972-73 in which the names of Chakali Baliga, Buchiga and Gagaira (others) were clearly recorded. The Joint Collector observed that the appellants failed to prove their possession on the crucial date i.e. 01.11.1973. The Joint Collector failed to verify the pahani for the year 1955-58 in which the names of three elders of three families were recorded as possessors in occupancy column to establish their possession. The Joint Collector did not consider the filing of civil suit by the respondents herein and dismissal of the same. The petitioners-appellants further relied upon case law reported in V.LINGA REDDY V/s. V.RAM REDDY1 in which it was held that law of limitation is not strictly applicable to be Inams Act. The petitioners-appellants herein are not parties to the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and that the petitioners-appellants have no occasion or 1 2011 (6) ALT 225 9 opportunity to know about the issuance of ORC in favour of the respondents and that they are in possession of the suit land as on date and also cultivating their lands and as such the appeal is filed within time. The respondents herein by playing fraud on the Revenue Divisional Officer and suppressing the fact that they are three shareholders over the said Inams and obtained ORC and that the fraud vitiates all proceedings, and therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the Joint Collector.
10. The petitioners-appellants herein contended that one Pedda Jangaiah, brother of the appellants, never appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and never reported 'no objection' for issuance of ORC. The respondents herein might have impersonated him by producing another person in his place. Moreover, Pedda Jangaiah and his two sons who are fifth and sixth respondents are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the land which fell to their share and the name of Pedda Jangaiah was also recorded in the revenue records in the possessory column and it clearly shows that possession is still within the petitioners-appellants' family and it clearly establishes that the respondents have no 10 exclusive right to claim ORC in their favour. The petitioners- appellants would mainly contend that Inam was issued in the caste name which is popularly known as Chakalivani Bhavi Thari and Chakali Vani Chelka and they were in favour of Chakali families in the village. As per Sessala Pahani for the year 1956-58 all the three names of the ancestors of the Chakali caste were mentioned and they were in possession of the lands and are continuing as such till today. But the Revenue Divisional Officer without verifying the important documents and without calling for the actual site report from the Tahsildar issued ORC and it is illegal and is to be set aside.
11. In the revenue records that is in the pahanies two persons with the same name of Baliga but their surnames were not recorded and as such there was ambiguity in the revenue records. Respondents taking advantage of such ambiguity, misrepresented and played fraud upon the Revenue Divisional Officer in obtaining ORC. As the fraud vitiates everything, the said order is liable to be set aside. 11
12. Respondents in their written arguments submitted that the petitioners-appellants do not know the procedure of Inams and preparation of Munthakhab. At the time of granting any inam, the details of inam, the name of the beneficiary, survey number, extent of land and the purpose of inam would be mentioned in the Munthakhab and the petitioners-appellants failed to produce copy of the Munthakhab and as such inam was not given to the Chakali caste people and it was given to the individual persons. The petitioners-appellants are not residents of Boinapally Village but they are residents of Medipur Village of Tadoor Mandal. Late Balaiah was called as Baliga, father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and paternal grandfather of respondent Nos.5 to 9. The name of father of the first petitioner-appellant and Baliga is quite different with Baliga, father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 whose name is appearing as Inamdar and cultivator in the phanies and taking advantage of the similarity of the names the petitioners-appellants setup false claim. The respondents further submitted in their written statement that consequent to abolition of inams, all the rights in inam lands were vested with the Government and as such the Revenue Divisional 12 Officer rightly issued ORC in their favour. The respondents would also submitted that the certificate for re-grant over an extent of Ac.19.11 guntas was made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are sons of the first respondent and they have inherited the ORC and patta was implemented in their names and the petitioners-appellants cannot raise objections after twenty four years as the rights were vested with the respondents under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. The respondents also submitted that the appellants are not legal heirs of any inamdar of the land, they were not occupants of the land during the year 1973-74 and as such no notice is required to be served on them before issuing ORC and that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was passed after following due procedure. The names of the petitioners-appellants or their ancestors were recorded in pahanies in collusion with the village Secretary. The Occupancy Rights Certificate will prevail over the entries in the phanies. The Joint Collector, considering the arguments of the respondents counsel and the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the RDO. 13
13. The case of the petitioners-appellants herein is that initially the land was granted to three branches of families belonging to chakali caste. The petitioners-appellants belongs to Budharam and respondents belongs to Bazar and Boddumalle families respectively. Their ancestors were Chakali (Buddaram) Baliga, Chakali (Bazar) and Chakali (Buddupally) Buchiga and their names were recorded as inamdars and all the families are cultivating their one third share of land each and they are distinguishable from the land of others and that the petitioners-appellants are in possession of the said lands till today. The petitioners- appellants contended that respondents filed suit for declaration but it was dismissed for default and it clearly shows that the petitioners-appellants are in possession. The petitioners-appellants further stated that they came to know about issuance of ORC by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the proceedings of the Thasildar dated 14.07.2010 and they filed the appeal within time from the date of knowledge.
14. The case of the petitioners-appellants that the land allotted to them was properly known as Chakali Vani Bhavi 14 Thari and Chakali Vani Chelka their names were recorded in Sessala Pahani for the years 1956-58 and also in the phani for the year 1972-73 and they filed copy of the phani in support of their contention. Though respondents filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of ORC, no notice was served to the petitioners-appellants herein. The Revenue Divisional Officer granted ORC in favour of the respondents basing on the no objection granted by Pedda Jagaiah. The petitioners-appellants stated that his own brother never appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and never reported no objection and he was impersonated by producing another person. Pedda Jangaiah and his two sons are still in possession and enjoyment of the land fell to their share and their names are reflected in the possessory column of the revenue records even after issuance of the ORC.
15. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not call for the report of the Thasildar before granting ORC. The respondents pointed out that the petitioners-appellants did not file the Muthakhab in which the details of inam are mentioned clearly. Equally, even the Munthakhab is not filed by the respondents herein in support of their contention. The Joint 15 Collector observed that the petitioners-appellants have not filed any documents to show that the inam was granted in the name of Chakali caste. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was patently illegal and he has not verified any record, simply on the application given by the respondents herein even without calling for the report from the Thasildar, basing on the no objection of Pedda Jangaiah granted ORC in favour of the respondents. But the petitioners-appellants contended that Pedda Jangaiah never reported no objection and he was impersonated by another person. The Joint Collector without considering all these factors and only relying upon the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents held that the delay is not properly explained by the petitioners-appellants herein. The petitioners-appellants herein clearly stated that the respondents obtained ORC behind their back and they came to know about the ORC only when the Thasildar issued orders on 14.07.2010 and immediately they filed appeal within time from the date of knowledge, but the said fact was not properly appreciated by the Joint Collector. Without considering the anomalies made by the Revenue Divisional 16 Officer, the Joint Collector confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and dismissed the appeal and also vacated the status quo order dated 21.10.2010.
16. The crux of the arguments of the petitioners-appellants is that the names of their three ancestors were reflected in the Sessala Pahani for the years 1956-58 as Chakali (Baliga) son of Saiga (Bazaru family of respondent Nos.1 to 4). Chaliga (Baliga son of Chennadu (Budharam) family of appellants) and Buchigadu son of Narsaiah (Boddumalle). They were in possession of the lands as on the date of abolition of inam and till today they are continuing in possession. The case of the petitioners-appellants is that the name of Baliga was mentioned without surname as there are two persons with the same name, there was some ambiguity in the phanies. Respondents taking advantage of the said ambiguity misrepresented that there are only two persons belong to the Chakali community and obtained ORC illegally by playing fraud on the Revenue Divisional Officer. Though the Joint Collector kept the file pending with her for nine years, hastily disposed of the appeal without verifying the above factors. 17 Therefore, the order of the Joint Collector is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
17. In the result the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.
18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
26th OCTOBER, 2022.
PGS