Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.REDDY, DEVENDER GUPTA
G.Venkat Ram Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Najeebunnisa - Respondent
Decided On : 03-29-05
Inam Act - Section 4, 24, 5, 10, 6, 7 and 8 - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 102, 37 , 34 - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 2 - Clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 - Restore possession of the land - Legality and validity of the order - Acquisition of land - Respondents 3 to 6 and 15 and 16 in W. P. out of which the present appeal has arisen - Respondents 1 to 10 are the writ petitioners - Respondents 11 and 12 are official respondents whose orders were challenged in writ petition - Respondents 13 to 24 are proforma respondents who were arrayed as respondents in writ petition – Court are referring to parties in the appeal as they were arrayed in writ petition - APPEAL is against Judgment of learned single Judge in W. P. No allowing writ petition directing the official respondents to restore possession of land in question to writ petitioners within a period of eight weeks from of receipt of copy of order - Petitioners had questioned the legality and validity of order passed by Joint Collector, R. R. District in File thereby confirming the order of Revenue divisional Officer in File with a prayer to quash and set aside same as illegal arbitrary and void and to direct the Revenue divisional Officer to restore possession of the land to them – Court are taking note of some admitted factual aspects involved in case on basis of which arguments were addressed before us by learned counsel appearing for parties and we will also refer to some other aspects and points of law on which parties are at variance – Held, Respondents by virtue of their continuous occupation and non-ejectment from land on coming into force of Act - Acquired status of protected tenants having remained in occupation of the land as tenants for a period not less than six years between 1342 Fasli and 1352 Fasli - They were already in occupation of the land as tenants in year 1342 Fasli by virtue of lease and were also in occupation in 1348 Fasli and continued to remain in occupation thereafter also – Court hold that writ petition filed by petitioners had no force and was liable to be dismissed - Learned single Judge erred in allowing writ petition - Stage we may take notice of an important event - Which has happened during pendency of the Appeal. W. A. M. P. was filed jointly by appellants 5 and 6 and respondents said application was ordered and compromise arrived at between parties was taken on record further ordering that it will be taken due care of at the time of hearing of main appeal - Under terms of compromise - Respondents 1 to 10 herein who are writ petitioners withdrew their claim against appellants 5 and 6 with respect to an extent of Ac. 47. 22 guntas in Survey Nos. situated confirming patta certificates issued by Revenue Divisional officer by his order vide proceedings - Since compromise has already been recorded same will not either way affect rights of parties since – Court have already held that writ itself was liable to be dismissed - Writ Petition of petitioners who are respondents in this appeal is hereby dismissed - APPEAL is accordingly allowed
( 1 ) APPELLANTS herein are respondents 3 to 6 and 15 and 16 in W. P. No. 10242 of 1992 out of which the present appeal has arisen. Respondents 1 to 10 are the writ petitioners. Respondents 11 and 12 are the official respondents whose orders were challenged in the writ petition. Respondents 13 to 24 are proforma respondents who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. We are referring to the parties in the appeal as they were arrayed in the writ petition.
( 2 ) APPEAL is against the Judgment of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 10242 of 1992 dated 1-11-2002 allowing the writ petition ahd~thereby directing the official respondents to restore possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
( 3 ) THE writ petitioners had questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Joint Collector, R. R. District in File no. B3/6703/85 dated 28-4-1992 thereby confirming the order of the Revenue divisional Officer, Chevella dated 8-5-1985 in File No. L/3501/83 with a prayer to quash and set aside the same as illegal arbitrary and void and to direct the Revenue divisional Officer, Chevella to restore possession of the land to them.
( 4 ) THIS case has a chequered history. We are taking note of some admitted factual aspects involved in the case on the basis of which arguments were addressed before us by learned counsel appearing for the parties and we will also refer to some other aspects and points of law on which parties are at variance.
( 5 ) SHAIK Maqdoom, the ancestor of the petitioner was granted 8 plots of cultivable and (MAQTAT) measuring approximately 495 Bighas equivalent to about 120 Acres as maqtedar besides Inam lands in Turkapally village, now in Medchal Taluk, Ranga Reddy district. On his death, the Maqtat plots and inam lands were allowed to be retained under the possession and enjoyment of his sons Shaik Nadeem and Ghulam Mohd. from the beginning of the year 1231 Fasli (1820 AD) by a Sanad issued under the seal of Raja Chandulal Bahadur. The lands were being enjoyed by the Maqtedars for quite some time and later by their successors. After setting apart considerable portion of the land for cultivation, Maqtedar Sri Shaik Shah ali by a "qawlnama" (agreement) leased out some of the lands for a period of ten years to the predecessors of respondents 1 to 12 in the year 1928 (1338 Fasli ). It is this portion of the land, which is subject matter of the present controversy. The Maqtedar died in or about 1930 AD. There was already an inam inquiry pending about the Inam. It appears that after death of the Maqtedar, the inam inquiry stood dismissed in default for non-appearance on 1-2-1340 Fasli. The tahsildar received an order through Letter no. 152 dated 16-2-1340 Fasli to take the maqta and Inam lands under Government s supervision and to report compliance to two weeks. Through Letter No. 99 dated 26-4-1340 Fasli the Tahsildar reported compliance that Maqta has been taken under supervision of the Government. Zimma Patrak Havala Patti was submitted by Mukhaddam Patwari on 20th. Bahman 1340 Fasli in File No. 72/96/1340 Shumali.
( 6 ) FACTS and circumstances may also be noticed under which the Inam inquiry had been ordered. One Mohammed Shah Ali and Ghulam Mohammed had filed a claim petition dated 5th Aban 1322 Fasli in the district Atraf Balda stating that the Maqta and Inam lands were granted to their ancestor Shaik Shabaz and later a fresh sanad was granted in the name of Ghulam mohd. and Shaik Nadeem, sons of Shaik maqdoom under the seal of Raja Chandulal bahadur. They claimed that they were also entitled for a share in the Inam. This petition set the ball rolling for an inquiry to be made as regards the Inam in which some shareholders of the Maqta also appeared as uzurdars. Before final decision could be taken, the file was closed pending receipt of the orders regarding Inam inquiry of the royal Gr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
