Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Narasimha And Ors. vs Joint Collector-Ii And Anr. on 27 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(2)ALD621, 2006(3)ALT84
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER Goda Raghuram, J.
1. This is a revision preferred under Section 28 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector-n, Ranga Reddy District in an appeal bearing reference No. F1/8680/2003. By the order impugned the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners under Section 24 of the Act (directed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy dated 10-10-2003 in proceedings bearing reference No. J/1828/2002).
The background facts :
2. The 2nd respondent herein applied on 10-7-2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short "ORC") in respect of an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy. No. 196 of Dommara Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur conducted an enquiry into the claim and submitted a preliminary report on 15-7-2002. The report recorded that the land in Sy. No. 196 admeasuring Ac.3.05 guntas is classified as dry land and as Dasthgardhan Inam; that Sarvasri Loka Shivaiah, Sathaiah and Laxtnaiah were the inamdars; Vadla Veera Chary and the 2nd respondent herein are in possession of the land in equal shares having purchased the same from the original inamdars through an unregistered sale deed dated 12-1-1974; and that Veera Chart and the 2nd respondent herein were in possession as on 1-11-1973 and are continuously in possession as on date (of the report of the M.R.O). On the above factual conclusions, the M.R.O. recommended grant of ORC in favour of the 2nd respondent over an extent of Ac. 1.12 guntas in the survey number. After the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer took up the 2nd respondent's application for regular enquiry and issued the relevant notices as well as- a general notification, which was issued on 26-7-2002 inviting claims-objections from interested parties. On 31-7-2002 the revision petitioners filed their objections to the 2nd respondent's application. The revision petitioners claimed to have purchased an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas from the 2nd respondent and Vadla Krishna son of Veera Chari', resisted the 2nd respondent's claim for an ORC and sought the ORC for themselves. The R.D.O. proceeded to consider the claims and counter-claims of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners and passed the order dated 10-10-2003.
3. According to the 2nd respondent herein, he purchased an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196 from the inamdars, was in possession of the said extent as on 1-11-1973 and continued to be in possession; his name is recorded as being in possession of the said extent of land in the pahanis for the year 1973-74 as well as in the latest pahanis. He denied the alleged sale in favour of the revision petitioners and pleaded that the revision petitioners were never in possession of any land in Sy.No.196. At the hearing before the R.D.O on behalf of the 2nd respondent it was also urged that he and Bala Krishna Chart had filed O.S. No. 170 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction and obtained an exparte injunction in LA. No. 379 of 2003. The ex parte injunction order was later made absolute and the plaintiffs were also granted police aid.
4. The revision petitioners contended before the R.D.O, through their pleadings as well as written arguments that the 2nd respondent had failed to mention as to how he came into possession of the property and in what capacity. According to the revision petitioners they purchased the land in an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.196 from Vadla Krishna Chary @ Kista Chary and the 2nd respondent since 1989 on different dates and in different extents and were in continuous possession of the entire extent of the land since the purchases. They developed the land, covered it with fencing, dug a bore well, laid a pipeline, obtained electrical connection and were cultivating the land. The revision petitioners further contended that on their application, the M.R.O made a local enquiry and conducted a panchanama which reveals that they had purchased the land from the 2nd respondent and another and are in continuous possession and enjoyment. Since according to the panchanama the 2nd respondent is not in possession of the land and as the determination as to the 2nd respondent's possession in the interlocutory application in O.S. No. 170 of 2003 is subject to C.M.A. No. 110 of 2003 pending before the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the decision of the Civil Court cannot be relied upon.
5. Having considered the competing claims the R.D.O concluded that the pahanies from 1973-74 establish that the extent of land of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.196 records the names of the original inamdars and of Bala Chari and Veera Chari as possessors as on the crucial date (1-11-1973) an,' thereafter. The R.D.O. also held that in view of the provisions of Sections 5 to 8 of the Act those who are in possession and are cultivating the land as on 1-11-1973 are entitled for grant of ORC. The R.D.O. also concluded that the revision petitioners are never recorded as having been in possession as per the pahanies either on the crucial date or ever. They failed to prove their possession on the basis of any evidence and only the 2nd respondent is seen to be in possession. The R.D.O also relied on the orders of the Civil Court in the LA. in O.S. No. 170 of 2003 and an order dated 11-7-2003 granting police aid to the 2nd respondent and the other occupant, in I.A. No. 598 of 2003. In addition to the above the R.D.O relied on the report of the M.R.O, which recorded the possession of the 2nd respondent in an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas and had also recommended for grant of ORC in his favour. The R.D.O clearly recorded that there was no evidence to show the possession of the revision petitioners in the land in Sy.No.196 and accordingly concluded that as the 2nd respondent was in possession as on 1-11-1973 and thereafter he was eligible to the grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Act and over an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196. On the basis of the above several findings and conclusions, by the order dated 10-10-2003 the R.D.O. granted ORC to the 2nd respondent over an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas. Consequently by proceedings J/l828/2002 dated 15-10-2003 the R.D.O also issued orders registering the name of the 2nd respondent as an occupant in respect of the land.
6. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 24 of the Act to the 1st respondent herein. On the date of hearing before the 1st respondent on 12-7-2005 there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners while the 2nd respondent was duly represented. The 1st respondent-appellate authority having considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the revision petitioners and the other material on the appellate record, dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority held that C.M.A. No. 110 of 2003 (preferred by the revision petitioners against the interim injunction orders in O.S. No. 170 of 2003) was also dismissed and the trial Court and the appellate Court had clearly recorded findings that the 2nd respondent and the other co-owner were in possession since 1973 and were entitled to protection of their possession and therefore for an injunction. On the basis of the above material, the 1st respondent appellate authority concurred with the conclusions of the R.D.O. that the 2nd respondent was in occupation and possession as on 1-11-1973 and therefore the grant of ORC to him is not in error nor was there any other justification for interfering with the order of the R.D.O. dated 10-10-2003.
The rival contentions :
7. In this revision the order of the 1st respondent dated 3-9-2005 confirming the order of the R.D.O dated 10-10-2003 is assailed. The revision petitioners assert that the appellate authority erred in relying on the orders of the Civil Court instead of independently determining the claim of the 2nd respondent (for grant of an ORC) and the correctness of the proceedings of the R.D.O. dated 10-10-2003, in respect of which area the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction; that the 1st respondent ought to have remanded the case to the R.D.O for fresh determination as in a connected appeal filed by the 2nd respondent herein (Appeal No. F-1/8083/03 dated 19-10-2004), the Joint Collector had set aside the order of the R.D.O. dated 12-11-2003 and remanded the matter back to the R.D.O. for determination afresh (the issue regarding the claim for an ORC) as such order of remand was in respect of the same survey number. The revision petitioners contend that the 1st respondent applied different yardsticks. The revision petitioners also contend that the orders of injunction granted by Civil Court and the dismissal of the CMA are all in respect of interlocutory stages and the main suit for injunction (O.S. No. 170 of 2003) is still pending adjudication. There is no evidence produced by the 2nd respondent in support of his claim for ORC is also the contention in this revision,
8. On behalf of the 2nd respondent while contending that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is not in error and is not liable to be interfered with, it is also contended that the revision itself is not maintainable under Section 28 of the Act.
9. The 2nd respondent also contends, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. and Ors. v. V. Veera Raghavan ; Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. ; India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M.A. Baker and Anr. ; Narender v. Pradeep Kumar , Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar and Raghunathe Jewat at Bhapur v. State of Orissa and Ors. , that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction only patent errors of law of an inferior Court or Tribunal, could be corrected and no interference on findings of fact, particularly concurrent findings of fact, is permissible.
Re-maintainability of this Revision :
10. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the very revision under Section 28 of the Act is not maintainable as Section 28 expressly bars a revision to this Court in respect of an order passed or proceedings taken by the Collector under Section 24 of the Act. As the appeal by the revision petitioners to the 1st respondent was under Section 24 of the Act (against an order dated 10-10-2003 of the R.D.O granting ORC to the 2nd respondent), no revision lies to this Court is the specific plea of the 2nd respondent. In G.V. Narsimha Reddy and Anr. v. Syed Aktar Ali 1988 (2) ALT 136, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice M. Jagannadha Rao as his Lordship then was) held that under Section 28 of the Act the Legislature wanted to prohibit a revision in cases where an appeal or a reference lay. The Legislature did not intend to disallow a revision to the High Court against an appellate order of the Collector (under Section 24). The R.D.O, is also a Collector by virtue of the delegation of the powers and therefore the prohibition in Section 28 regarding revision must be considered as only with respect to the orders of the R.D.O. which are appealable under Section 24 of the Act to the Joint Collector or in respect of a reference to be made under Section 24(2), also to the Joint Collector. The learned Judge also held that notwithstanding the delegation, the Joint Collector while dealing with the appeals is still a Collector in view of provisions of Section 2(a). The exclusion of the revisional power spelt out in Section 28 would apply only to the primary orders passed by the R.D.O. which are appealable under Section 24(1) and against which a reference would lie to the Joint Collector under Section 24(2). The bar of the revisional power would not however apply to an appellate order passed by the Joint Collector (Collector) under Section 24(1) in matters concerning grant of ORC, held Justice Jagannadha Rao. A diametrically contrary view was taken in Multan Sangiah and Anr. v. Patel Eswarappa . The learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Y.V. Narayana) held that under the provisions of the Act the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is available in respect of orders other than those passed under Section 24. The intention of the Legislature was to put an end to all litigation at the appellate stage itself (under Section 24) and thereafter no further appeal or revision is provided against an order passed under Section 24. The Patel Eswarappa decision clearly held that no revision lies against an order of the prescribed authority under Section 24 of the Act, The decision in G. V. Narsimha Reddy's case (supra) was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge, (in Patel Eswarappa) however held that he was not inclined to agree with the reasoning in the G.V. Narsimha Reddy's case, (supra) that the legislative intent was clear from the provisions of the Section 28 and a revision to this Court against an order of the Joint Collector under Section 24(1) clearly did not lie. In a subsequent decision in Jamedar Bhavani Singh v. Budathi Balaiah and Ors. , another learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice D.H. Nasir) was confronted with the decision in G.V. Narsimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (supra), Nasir, J., held that in view of the decision in G.V. Narasimha Reddy case, (supra) the decision in Patel Eswarappa case must be treated as per incuriam. In a yet later decision another Single Judge of this Court (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.,) in A.P. Punjabi Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District and Ors. , considered the earlier decisions in G.V. Narasimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (supra), and steered clear of the conflict by holding that a grievance as to the correctness of the decision of the Joint Collector under Section 24 of the Act could well be considered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
11. Having regard to the precedential conflict on the question as to the availability of a revisional remedy to this Court under Section 28 of the Act, I consider it appropriate to consider the present revision as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while leaving the resolution of the conflict [in the decisions in G.V. Narasimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (supra)], for an appropriate occasion, by a Division Bench of this Court.
12. The Act was by the erstwhile Hyderabad Legislature and was enacted with the object of abolishing the imams in the former State of Hyderabad. Section 3 enacts the abolition of all the imams with effect from the date of the commencement of the Act and their vesting in the Government. Sections 4 to 8 provide for registration of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants as occupants of the inam lands. The legislative intent, as deducible from the scheme of the Act and its provisions, appears to be that persons in actual possession and cultivation of the abolished imams should be registered as occupants subject to specified limitations and conditions. The vesting provision under Section 3 is for the purpose of working out the rights of the several persons as spelt out in the provisions of the Act. Absolute vesting in the State is limited to situations and circumstances provided in the Act itself. The Act was not in force in its entirety in 1955. Only the provisions of Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 (Excluding clauses (d)(g)(h) and (i) of Sub-section (2) and Sections 30 to 34, 36 and 37 were brought into force with effect from 20-7-1956. After the formation of new State of A.P., the A.P. (T.A.) Inams Abolition Act, 1967 was enacted to repeal the 1955 Act. This Act was struck down. Thereafter a Bench of this Court held that on the striking down of the 1967 Act, the Act revived. After these developments, a notification was issued brining the entire Act into force with effect from 1-11-1973 and in G.O. Ms. No. 870 Revenue (G) dated 27-6-1975 Rules were issued for effectuating the purposes of the Act - the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules 1975. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the expression "Inamdar" to include a 'successor-in-interest' of an inamdar. This expression and in the context of the Act having been enforced at different points in time, came to be considered by Jeevan Reddy, J., (as his Lordship then was) in Kodithala Keshavulu v. Government of A.P. 1978 (2) An.WR 31. This decision held that in the interregnum between the enforcement of certain provisions with effect from 20-7-1956 and others with effect from 1-11-1973, the rights of the landlords and tenants remained intact as no proceedings could be taken under Sections 4 to 8 for registering the inamdars or other persons mentioned in those provisions, as occupants. Therefore, Kodithala case (supra) held, the right of the inamdar under the Act must not be interpreted as having been taken away. The Court held that the expression "successor-in-interest" would include a person upon whom an interest devolves even if the devolution be by an inamdar after 20-7-1956. As a corollary of this decision, which holds the field as on date, a person who succeeds to the interest of an inamdar even after 20-7-1956 including by alienation or transfer from such inamdar, if in occupation and possession of erstwhile inam lands as on 1-11-1973, would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and subject to its conditions.
13. The R.D.O. has elaborately considered the rival claims, of the 2nd respondent and the revision petitioners and has recorded clear and elaborate conclusions in the order dated 10-10-2003. The 2nd respondent is found to have established on the basis of the pahanies, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the decisions of the Civil Court (though at an interlocutory stage in O.S. No. 170 of 2003 and C.M.A. No. 110 of 2003), that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196 as on 1-11-1973 and continued to be in possession. The R.D.O. also recorded and rightly so that the revision petitioners had failed to establish their claim to possession of the land of an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.196 by any cogent and probative evidence, either as on 1-11-1973 or thereafter. The very claim of the revision petitioners is on the basis of their having purchased the extent of land in Sy.No.196, from time to time, from the 2nd respondent and the other co-owner Kista Chart since 1989. The revision petitioners have neither pleaded nor established before the Tribunals constituted under the Act -the R.D.O. and the Joint Collector, that they were in possession of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.196 as on 1-11-1973. Nothing is stated as to how they came into possession of the lands as on the relevant date nor was any evidence led in support of their claim to possession.
14. The conclusion of the R.D.O. that the revision petitioners failed to establish their claim to possession of the land and his rejection of the revision petitioners' claim for ORC, by the order dated 10-10-2003 suffers from no infirmity. The 1st respondent by the order dated 3-9-2005 concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the R.D.O. The mere fact that the 1st respondent buttressed such concurrence on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court in O.S. No. 170 of 2003 and CMA No. 110 of 2003 would not, in the considered view of this Court detract from the validity of the 1st respondent's concurrence that the revision petitioners were in possession of the lands. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent established his possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196 as on 1-11-1973 and thereafter on the basis of evidence which rationally appealed to the R.D.O. and on which the 1st respondent appellate authority also recorded a concurrence. This Court discerns no patent error of law or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the R.D.O. and the 1st respondent-appellate authority, warranting revisional interference.
15. Another grievance of the revision petitioners is that the appellate authority applied different standards in determining the appeal whose order is impugned herein and the other appeal [being Inam Appeal No. 8683/03]. This grievance of the revision petitioners does not commend acceptance. Inam Appeal No. 8683 of 2003 was an appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent herein against an order dated 12-11-2003 of the R.D.O. granting ORC in respect of an extent of Ac. 1.23 guntas out of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.196, in favour of the revision petitioners and another. While setting aside the order of the R.D.O dated 12-11-2003, the 1st respondent by the order dated 19-10-2004 in Inam Appeal No. 8683 of 2003 found the whole procedure adopted by the R.D.O. to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. The appellate authority found that as against applications submitted for issuance of ORC to an extent of Ac. 1.00 the R.D.O. had issued ORC in favour of five persons and for an extent of Ac. 1.23 guntas and also that the R.D.O. had failed to follow the procedure under Rule 6 of the Rules regarding issuance of notice to all interested persons, fixing a date for holding of the enquiry and calling for objections including a general notice calling for objections. Accordingly the order of the R.D.O. dated 12-11-2003 was set aside and the issue remanded back to the R.D.O. for de novo enquiry.
16. In the case on hand no such procedural or substantive infirmity is discemable and therefore the 1st respondent-appellate authority rightly determined the appeal on merits though concurring with the reasons and conclusions of the primary authority-the R.D.O. There is thus no discriminatory standard applied by the 1st respondent in disposing of the appeal.
17. For all the aforesaid reasons there are no merits in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no costs awarded.