Telangana High Court
Gsp Veera Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 13 June, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.486, 492, 495, 498, 500 of 2017
and 10323 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
All the writ petitions except W.P.No.10323 of 2018 are filed questioning the common order and the suit schedule property in W.P.No.500 of 2017 and W.P.No.10323 of 2018 is one and the same. In view of that, all these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
3. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.486 of 2017 is being taken as a lead case.
2
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Contentions of the petitioners in W.P.No.486, 492, 495, 498 and 500 of 2017
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have inherited the total land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.196.20 gts in Sy.Nos.1 to 55 situated at Allapur Village, Balapur Mandal, Medchal District from their ancestors. The name of Sri Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri was recorded as Inam Pattadar of the said lands in the village records for the year 1348 Fasli, Muntaqab No.926, Sethwar, Wasool Baki and Kasra Pahani for the year, 1954-55. After the death of Sri Syed Yahya Alam Quadri on 08.10.1964, his legal heirs filed suit in O.S.No.16 of 1965 on the file of Munsif Magistrate Court, Hyderabad East and North for declaration and the same was decreed on 18.03.1965 declaring that Khairunnisa Begum and seven other persons are legal heirs of late Sri Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri and they are entitled for their 3 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch respective shares in the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.196-20 gts. After the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955) came into force, the petitioners being legal heirs of said Sri Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri made applications to the respondent authorities to register their names as Inamdars under Section 4 of the Act, 1955 and to issue occupancy rights certificate, but no enquiry was conducted under the said Act and the Rules.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that due to grabbing of their lands by the third parties and the illegal entries in the revenue records, the petitioners have filed applications vide File Nos.L/694/2011, L/1383/2011, L/695/2011 and L/696/2011 in respect of different extents of lands before the Revenue Divisional Officer to delete the illegal 4 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch entries in the revenue records and to issue occupancy rights certificates to them. The said petitions were dismissed on 27.12.2011 stating that the said lands are patta lands and the provisions of Inam Abolition Act are not applicable. Against the said orders, the petitioners filed appeal Nos.F1/790/2012, F1/2885/2012, F1/2886/2012, F1/2887/2012 and F1/2833/2016 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the same were allowed on 29.03.2014 by setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded back the matters to re-examine the classification of the lands in question which are based on the Muntaqab No.926/1305 Fasli and directed to conduct de novo enquiry by giving notices to all the concerned and pass appropriate orders. After conducting enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the petitions and observed that the petitioners are not entitled for issuance of Occupancy 5 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Rights Certificates as they were not in actual possession as on crucial date i.e., 01.11.1973. Against the said orders, the petitioners have filed appeals before the respondent No.2 vide Appeal Nos.F1/2738/2016, F1/2831/2016, F1/2739/2016, F1/2740/2016 and F1/2832/2016 before the Joint Collector-1 Ranga Reddy District and the same were dismissed by common order dated 15.09.2016 and held that the petitioners are not entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificates and they did not produce any evidence for having established the possession over the land even before the lower Court or in the appeal and against the said orders, the instant writ petitions are filed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Inam Tribunal has failed to see that as per the registered Muntaqab No.926, Sethwar, Wasoolbaki, Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, other number of documents 6 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch including the letter of the Collector, Hyderabad in out ward No.A7/11/86/1954 dated 14.04.1995 and office file No.11/86 of 1954 Atiyat, the subject lands are Inam Lands and late Sri Syed Shah Ahya Alam Quadri was the Inamdar and after his death, the petitioners became the successors. He submits that as per the letter of the District Registrar vide Lr.No.07/RO(OB)/2014 dated 06.01.2015, no sale transactions took place in respect of the subject land from 1900 to 1955 i.e., the crucial date of vesting the inam property in the hands of the State Government and no protected tenancy certificate was issued in favour of any third parties. He further submits that the finding of non-possession is erroneous as the petitioners were in actual possession until around 1996 and the revenue records were destroyed in a fire accident in the year, 1998 and the authorities have failed to summon or rely on reconstructed records or secondary evidence. 7
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector have not examined the effect of the Decree in O.S.No.16 of 1965 on the file of Munsif Court, Hyderabad East and North nor appreciated the legal presumption in favour of the Inamdar's successor in the absence of rival claims and the orders are non-speaking, do not assign cogent reasons and merely reiterate the absence of names in the pahanis without assessing the legal effect of earlier records and Court decrees. He further submits that the land vests in the State only for the limited purpose of determining the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates. Until such determination, the Inamdar or his successor holds title unless lawfully displaced. He further submits that mutation of entries is only for fiscal purpose and does not constitute legal title or lawful possession and 8 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch requested to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the common order dated 15.09.2016.
Contentions of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 in W.P.Nos.492, 495 and 500 of 2017.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 submits that the respondents herein are absolute owners and possessors of various extents of lands in different survey numbers situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having acquired the same for valuable consideration through registered sale deeds from the earlier owners, pattadars and possessors of said lands vide registered sale deeds and they have converted the said lands from agriculture to non-agriculture and they are in possession of the same.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submits that the petitioners have not filed any document to show that Mohd. Quasim Ali was the 9 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch absolute owner of the property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.196.20 gts in Sy.Nos.1 to 55 situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, presently Medchal District and no details were given as to how he has become owner of the property and the source of his title. The alleged copy of Muntakhab filed by the petitioners does not bear any stamp or seal of the issuing authority which itself shows that the said document was created by the petitioners. The petitioners did not state the date and month of the gift alleged to have been made by Mohd. Quasim Ali conveying the property to Syed Shan Yahya Alam Quadri and not mentioned the nature of gift either oral or document. The petitioners have not filed Inam Pattedar Village Records for the year 1348 Fasli, Muntakab No.926, Sethwar, Vasool Baki and Khasara pahani for the year 1954-55 and as such it cannot be said that Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri was Inam Pattedar of the subject land and they have not filed any 10 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch document to show that they have been in possession of the property from 1955 onwards till 01.11.1973.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not parties to the suit in O.S.No.16 of 1965 on the file of Munsiff Magistrate(East and North), Hyderabad, and they are not bound by the said Judgment and Decree. As per the settlement records such as Sethwar, Classer Register, Wasool Baqui etc., and the revenue records such as pahani patrikas and pahani adangals maintained by the State under relevant statutes clearly disclose that the subject lands are patta lands and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the provisions of the Act, 1955 and the petitioners have not placed a single document that the subject lands are under their possession and enjoyment from 20.07.1955 to 01.11.1973 and thereon.
11
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submits that in view of the nature of land being a private patta land, the Government after verification has mutated the names of the persons who have ownership of the same. He further submits that as per the pahanies, the vendors of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and after purchase the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are in possession of the subject land and the petitioners did not challenge the pahanies for the relevant period. The petitioners were not in possession of the subject property which is the prime consideration for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Act, 1955. He further submits that the respondent No.2-Joint Collector after considering all the documents and the revenue records held that the subject lands are private patta lands and passed the impugned order in accordance with the Act, 1955 and the Rules 12 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch framed thereunder and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
Contentions of the petitioners in W.P.No.10323 of 2018.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts in Sy.No.15 situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same by the petitoner No.1 through unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1973 from one Mrs. Yerram Manikyamma and after acquisition of rights over the land, the petitoner No.1 and his family members have made application under Section 5-A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to the Revenue Authorities for regularization of the said unregistered sale deed by paying requisite stamp duty. After conducting a detailed enquiry and following due procedure, the competent 13 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch authority has validated the said unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1973 and issued proceedings No.B/3471/1995 dated 22.09.1995 and thereafter, the said land was mutated in their favour, title deeds and pattadar passbooks were also issued to them and their names were recorded as possessors in the revenue records. He submits that after partition, the petitioners were allotted the land to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts and the respondent No.14 was allotted the land to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts and the said lands were converted from agriculture to non-agriculture. The respondent Nos.5 to 12 without having any right or title over the subject lands have filed application to delete the names of the petitoner No.1 and his family members and replace their names as pattadars and possessors of the subject land as per ROR Act, 1971 and the same was dismissed vide proceedings No.B/3623/2005 dated 27.01.2009. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent Nos.5 to 12 have filed appeal 14 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch under ROR Act, 1971 and the same was dismissed in File No.B/2574/2009 dated 07.01.2012, against which, they filed a revision under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971 wherein the respondent No.2-Joint Collector has set aside the orders made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioners and also dismissed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 12 as not maintainable.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the subject land was classified as patta land right from the inception and all the revenue records including the khasra pahanies of the year 1954-55, all subsequent ROR records and the pahanies refer to the character of the land as patta land. The respondent No.13 claiming through his predecessor made application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and the same was dismissed on 27.12.2011 and aggrieved by the same, he has preferred appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga 15 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Reddy District, who in turn has remanded back the matter to the Inams Tribunal vide proceedings in File No.2887/2012 dated 29.03.2014 and the Inams Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the respondent No.13 vide order dated 03.05.2016 in File No.L4114/14 and aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.13 has preferred appeal before the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed vide proceedings in File No.F1/2740/2016 dated 15.09.2016. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the respondent No.13 has filed W.P.No.500 of 2017.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2-Joint Collector having held that the revision petition is not maintainable, but passed the order setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 ought to have seen that the subject land was classified as patta land right from the inception and the 16 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch subject land is in exclusive possession of the petitioners from the year, 1973 and their rights and possession was confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by duly recording their names in the revenue records and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
Contentions of the respondent No.13 in W.P.No.10323 of 2018
15. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.13 submits that the Joint Collector gave a specific finding that the subject lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.196-20 gts 0in Sy.Nos.1 to 55 situated at Allapur Village are Makta lands or Inam lands and one Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri was the Inamdar who died leaving behind the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.486, 492, 495, 498, 500 of 2017 and 45935 of 2016 as legal heirs of Inamdar as per the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 1965 on the file of Munsiff Court, Hyderabad East and North. He 17 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch further submits that once the subject lands are Inam lands, the question of provisions of A.P.Pattadar Passbooks Act are not applicable to mutate the names of petitioners in W.P.No.10323 of 2018 and without obtaining occupancy rights certificate, the ROR proceedings are illegal and void under law and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Consideration and findings:
16. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.486, 492, 495, 498 and 500 of 2017 have questioned the common order passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District in the appeals in Case Nos.F1/2738/2016, F1/2739/2016, F1/2740/2016, F1/2831/2016, F1/2832/2016 and F/2833/2016 on 15.09.2016 pertaining to various survey numbers with different extents of lands situated at Allapur Village, 18 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said appeals were filed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 aggrieved by the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division in different orders in File Nos.L/4113/2014, L/4115/2014, L/4114/2014, L/4112/2014 dated 03.05.2016, L/1380/2011 and L/697/2011 dated 10.05.2016 for the land situated in various survey numbers situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners are claiming the land admeasuring total extent of Ac.196- 20 gts in Sy.Nos.1 to 55 situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The petitioners have filed different applications before the competent authorities and the same were initially dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year, 2011 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeals before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the same were allowed by remanding back the matter 19 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch to the preliminary authority on 29.03.2014 and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer has once again dismissed the said applications on the ground that the petitioners or their ancestors were not in possession of the schedule properties as on the date of vesting i.e, on 01.11.1973 as per the report sent by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal and the unofficial respondents are in possession of the respective schedule properties as in the capacity of pattadars. The Revenue Divisional Officer has given a finding that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence to show that either themselves or their predecessors-in-title were in possession of the lands as on the date of vesting and they have also failed to produce any evidence to the effect that they have approached the competent authorities alleging that the entries of possession recorded in the village records are incorrect and they are the actual persons in possession and got any orders to that effect including 20 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch change in classification of land and rejected the request of the petitioners for granting Occupancy Rights Certificates. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed appeals under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, the Joint Collector gave a finding that as per the records available, the petitioners are not entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificates as neither themselves nor their alleged ancestor were in possession of the land as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973 and they did not produce any evidence establishing the possession over the land even before the lower Courts or in the appeal and gave a finding that the lower authority has rightly passed the orders under appeal and there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower Court under appeal and observed that the nature of land under claim is also changed. 21
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that once the appellate authority has presumed the subject lands as Inam lands, they have to allow the appeals filed by the petitioners for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates to the legal heirs of the Inamdars. The contention of the unofficial respondents is that the petitioners have not filed any document to show that how the property was conveyed to said Sri Syed Shah Yahya Alam Quadri. The specific finding of the Inam Tribunal and the appellate authority is that the petitioners have failed to file any document to show that they are in possession as on the date of vesting i.e, 01.11.1973. The petitioners have failed to file any document before this Court to show that their ancestors or the petitioners are in possession of the subject property as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. 22
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
18. The relevant portion in Section 4 of the Telangana Abolition of Inam Act, 1955 is extracted as under;
"4. Registration of inamdars as occupants:-
(1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than--
(a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands; waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers;
(b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act;
(c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar;
Which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the 'family holding'.
As per above Section, the petitioners or their ancestors were under personal cultivation immediately before the date of vesting for granting Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) but, the petitioners have failed to file any document showing their possession or cultivation of the subject property on the vesting date i.e, 01.11.1973. In view of the same, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners for granting 23 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Occupancy Rights Certificates and no interference is called for in the orders passed by the appellate authority under the Act, 1955.
19. W.P.Nos.500 of 2017 and 10323 of 2018 are pertaining to the same schedule property i.e., the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-05 gts in Sy.No.15 situated at Allapur Village, Balanar Mandal. The W.P.No.500 of 2017 is filed questioning the order in Case No.F1/2740/2016 dated 15.09.2016 in the appeal under the Act, 1955. But W.P.No.10323 of 2018 is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in the revision petition filed under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Patadar Pass Books Act, 1971 in Case No.D1/5017/2013 dated 28.02.2018. In the said revision, the respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein have filed revision before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District against the order passed by the Special Grade 24 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in File No.C/2574/2009 dated 07.01.2012 in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-05 gts in Sy.No.15 situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The respondent No.13 in W.P.No.10323 of 2018 was impleaded as the respondent No.5 in the said revision. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, the revisional authority held that the appeal filed by the revision petitioners is not maintainable and dismissed the revision petition, but at the same time set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar in File No.B/3623/2005 dated 27.01.2009 and also the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in File No.C/2574/2009 dated 07.01.2012. The respondent No.2 herein has passed the impugned order stating that in Inam Abolition Proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division has passed orders on 25 SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch 21.01.2015 in File No.L/1381/2011 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.35 and 49 of Allapur Village on the application of the petitioner therein for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate over the said land and also in File No.L/1382/2011, the land pertaining to Sy.Nos.49, 50 and 51 of Allapur Village was declared as Inam land. In view of the same, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.05 gts in Sy.No.15 which is part and parcel of Sy.Nos.1 to 55 situated at Allapur Village is also Inam land and as such the ROR Act does not apply to the said land and the mutation proceedings under the ROR Act are not maintainable and the consequential orders in the appeal are non est in the eye of law. While dismissing the revision petition, the respondent No.2 has set aside the mutation proceedings issued by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar and also the consequential orders in the appeal in favour of the petitioners.
26
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
20. The petitioners in W.P.No.10323 of 2018 have rightly contended that the respondent No.2 has committed grave error in referring to unrelated and unconnected proceedings to which the writ petitioners are not the parties for setting aside the orders made in their favour and the suit schedule property in the instant writ petition is the subject matter before the appellate authority in Case No.F1/2740/2016 under the Act, 1955 and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-05 gts in Sy.No.15 is not declared as Inam land. The revisional authority under ROR proceedings cannot take into account of the proceedings pertaining to other survey numbers in the same village and declared that the land belongs to Inam land. The said finding of the respondent No.2 is beyond the scope of the revision filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 12 and the said findings are contrary to law and without any basis and without hearing all the effected parties and the same are liable to be set aside. 27
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch
21. The contention of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.10323 of 2018 is that without questioning the findings of the Inam Tribunal in Case No.L/1380/2011 dated 10.05.2016, the petitioner cannot get any benefit and it has to be declared as Inam land. In fact, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.05 gts in Sy.No.15 situated at Allapur village is not declared as Inam land by the Inam Tribunal or the appellate authority in the above said proceedings. In view of the same, the contention of the unofficial respondents is not acceptable and the finding given by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector in Case No.D1/5017/2013 dated 28.02.2018 is liable to be set aside.
22. In view of the above findings, W.P.Nos.486, 492, 495, 498 and 500 of 2017 are dismissed as devoid of merits.
28
SK,J W.P.No.486 of 2017 and batch The W.P.No.10323 of 2018 is allowed by setting aside the order passed in Case No.D1/5017/2013 dated 28.02.2018 by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. No order as to costs.
23. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SARATH, J Date:13.06.2025 sj