Telangana High Court
Golkonda Maisaiah Died Per Lrs 4 Others vs The Jt Collectori, Hyderabad 7 Others on 27 October, 2022
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6383 of 2016
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the Joint Collector, R.R.District, vide case No.F1/789/2012 dated 15.09.2016.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer in case No.H/1422/1985 held that one Alopi Shankar, Satyanarayana, Ram Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Krishna Kumar sons of Baidyanaath at Thummaloor village of Maheswaram Taluk shall be registered as an occupant in respect of the land specified in the schedule below and shall be liable to the Government to pay amount of Rs.3,478/- towards the premium in 10 annual installments from 19.03.1985 and shall also be liable to pay the land reforms Assessment in respect of the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Section (7). Aggrieved by the said order, appeal is preferred by Golkionda Maisaiah S/o. Late Ramaiah and he stated that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.152 part admeasuring Acs.10 - 00 gts., situated at Tummalur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District and the same is acquired thorough his ancestors.
3. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.147 of 2012, for perpetual injunction against him claiming that they are the owners and possessors of the suit land. They pleaded that they have succeeded the subject land along with other lands by way of Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) proceedings and obtained Certificate in file No.H/1422 of 1985 dated 27.03.1985 from first respondent office. Basing on the said ORC certificate they tampered the revenue records and trying to occupy the land of the appellant. As such, he approached the appellate authority to set aside the orders on the ground that Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders erroneously without following the due procedure as laid down under Section 4 of Inam Abolition Act and are cryptic and laconic without giving proper reasons and without verifying the revenue records. The Revenue Divisional Officer failed to issue notice to the appellant who is in actual possession of the subject land for more than 30 years, more crucially on 01.11.1973. The possession of the appellant clearly shown in the pahanies for the year 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 and also subsequent years. The Revenue Divisional Officer failed to see the Pahanies for the year 1973-74, which shows that appellant is only entitled for grant of ORC Certificate and thus requested to set aside the orders by the R.D.O.
4. In the counter - affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6, they contended that the land in Sy.No.152 is totally admeasuring Acs.18 - 12 gts. Admittedly, it is Inam land, their father namely Baidyanath name was reflected as protected tenant along with other survey numbers. After introduction of the AP (TA) Abolition Inam Act 1955, all the Inam lands including the present survey number vested with the Government subject to re-grant to the persons in possession of the said land under Section 4 to 8 of the said act. The father of the respondent Nos 2 to 6 namely Baidyanath was in possession of the Inam land bearing Sy.Nos.152, 153, 181 to 194 totally admeasuring Acs.247 - 12 gts., situated at Thummaloor Village. After his death, his legal hiers filed application in Form No.1 before the Inam Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer. Basing on the revenue records after calling the report from the concerned Tahsildar, following the procedure laid down in Inam Act, he issued Occupancy Right Certificate in Form No.III under Section 7 of the AP (TA) Abolition Inam Act in their favour and the said certificate was implemented in the revenue records in the name of respondent Nos.2 to 6 as pattedars and possessors and also issued pattadari pass book and title deeds in their favour. They are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Out of the above Survey Numbers some lands were acquired by the Government and paid compensation to the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Hence, the ORC issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 became final and appellant without any right or title or interest over the subject land in Sy.No.152 Part, admeasuring Acs.10 - 00 gts alleged as pattedar and possessor and with the help of lower revenue officials inserted his name in the revenue records and trying to claim the rights. The appellant has not filed any record to show that he comes under the definition of any category under section 4 to 8 of A.P (T.A) Abolition Inam Act 1955 and he is not Inamdar, Kabize Kadim, Permanent Tenant, Protected Tenanat and Non-Protected Tenant. Hence, he is not entitled for any right and the appellant has no locus standi to file appeal. As respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the legal heirs of recorded protected tenant and their father was in possession of the subject land on crucial date i.e, 01.11.1973, the Inam Tribunal granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in their favour by collecting premium amount and the appellant has no right to challenge the said order after lapse of 28 years by fabricating certain documents. The appellant by fabricating revenue records inserted his name. Hence, they filed suit in O.S.No.147 of 2012 for perpetual injunction and in I.A.No.87 of 2012 in O.S.No.147 of 2012 Court granted interim injunction and it is still pending. The appellant challenged the orders dated 27.03.1985 passed in respect of 16 Survey Numbers admeasuring Acs. 247 - 12 gts of Thummaloor Village, though his claim is filed to an extent of Acs. 10 - 00 gts part of Sy.No.152, which is contrary to law and procedure. He is no way concerned with the subject land, his claim is not tenable. The claim of the appellant is based on the wrong entries and hence appeal is not maintainable. There is no procedural defect in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. As respondent Nos.2 to 6 are legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant and the possession of the protected tenant is deemed to be continued in possession of the land covered by the protected tenancy rights, no right cannot be taken away by any law and they are saved under Section 33 of A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 and thus requested the Court to dismiss the appeal.
5. The Joint Collector considering the arguments of both sides, observed that in the pahani copies produced by the appellants, the name of appellant found recorded as possessor for the year 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1975 - 76. Whereas, the copies of pahanies available in the file, the name of appellant is not found recorded in possession column. The Revenue Divisional Officer verified the copies of the pahanies for the years 1971- 72 and protected tenancy certificate of the father of the respondents and confirmed their rights under Section 7 of the Inams Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued any notice which is mandatory. But, he mentioned that Inamdar has no objection, if O.R.C granted on the claim of the petitioner. The entries in the pahani copies of 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 produced by the appellant and respondents are different. The Revenue Divisional Officer considering the fact that who are in occupation of the Inam land as on 01.11.1973 with reference to original record, saved the rights of the respondents under Section 33 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order legal representatives of Golkonda Maisaiah filed this Civil Revision Petition.
6. They stated that Acs.10 - 00 gts of land was acquired by succession and inheritance through petitioners father late Golkonda Maisaiah and he purchased the property from original owner namely Korni Yadagiri in the year 1972 by way of sada binama and the same was implemented in ROR in the name of Golkonda Maisaiah by virtue of proceedings No.B/978/1995 dated 12.02.1996 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram mandal, after following due process of law as envisaged under ROR Act 1971 as per Section 5A(5) recommended for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds in favour of Golkonda Maisaiah. The Revenue Divisional Officer failed to consider the above aspect itself prior to the issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds in favour of Golkonda Maisaiah. His name is continuing as occupant in the possession over the subject property since 1973-74 onwards. Till date petitioners are cultivating the subject land by raising paddy crop along with vegetables. They are illiterate and poor agriculturists. As such, neighboring land owners tampered the revenue records in their favour behind their back and they kept quite for 2 ½ decades and in the year 2012 they made illegal interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property on the ground that they obtained O.R.C. The petitioners came to know about the issuance of O.R.C and preferred an appeal before the appellate forum. The Revenue Divisional Officer without making proper enquiry, issued O.R.C and he has not called for the report from the Tahsildar, Maheswaram mandal.
7. The respondents stated that they have filed correspondence between the District Collector and Lokayuktha in Lr.No.D5/3539/2015 dated 31.08.2016. In the said report, it was clearly held that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, the pahanies pertaining to Sy.Nos.460/2, 461, 462/2, 477 to 485 of Makhal Village and also the pahanies of Sy.Nos.152, 153, 180, 181 to 194 of Thummaloor village are tampered and the name of Korne Rajeshwar Rao was recorded in the pahani illegally. However, the year in which the pahani was tampered could not be established. As per the above report, records were tampered and the report of Korne Rajeshwar Rao was recorded in the pahanies illegally. Moreover, as rightly contended by the respondents herein, the respondent Nos.2 to 6 were having Acs.247 - 12 gts as per the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.03.1985. But, the appellants herein are claiming only to an extent of Acs. 10 - 00 gts in Sy.No.152 part. The Joint Collector clearly mentioned that the name of the appellant was not found in the pahanies available in the possessor column. Though, it was found in the pahanies furnished by the appellant for the year 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1975-76. This clearly shows that wrong entries were made in the pahanies submitted by the appellant and the said pahanies are not tallied with the pahanies available in the record. As such, the Joint Collector rightly confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and it needs no interference.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Joint Collector dated 15.09.2016, in which Occupancy Right Certificate (O.R.C) granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.03.1985 was confirmed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: .10.2022
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6383 of 2016
DATED: .10.2022
TRI