L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20. 2. 2004 passed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, the first respondent, under Section 24 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short the Act ). Through that order, the first respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6. 6. 2002 passed by the revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (Inams Tribunal), the second respondent, issuing the Occupancy Rights Certificate (O. R. C.) under the provisions of that Act in respect of the land admeasuring 3500 sq. yards in Survey Nos. 22 and 24 of Daiara village, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad district, in favour of Respondents 3 to 5 (hereinafter be referred to as the contesting respondents ).

( 2 ) CLAIMING to be the lineal descendants of one Zainulabeddin and his wife Ayesha Begum, the contesting respondents filed an application before the second respondent under Section 4 of the act, for grant of O. R. C. in respect of the land in old Survey No. 18 correlated to new Survey Nos. 22, 24 and 26 of the said village. Initially, the application was made in respect of the land in an extent of ac. 1. 34 guntas in Survey No. 26. Later on, they came forward with a further request to grant O. R. C. in respect of Ac. 0. 20 guntas of land in Survey No. 22 and Ac. 0. 38 guntas of land in Survey No. 24. According to them, the land in old Survey No. 18 was granted as Inam in favour of their ancestor zainulabeddin through a muntakab dated 31. 6. 1312 Fasli and after his death succession was granted in favour of his wife ayesha Begum. They pleaded that Ayesha begum died on 31. 10. 1978 and her only daughter Hafeejunnisa Begum, mother of the contesting respondents, became the successor, and that on her death, they became entitled to be granted the O. R. Cs. over the land. They pleaded that old survey No. 18 was correlated to new survey Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 in the revision survey and that the Municipal corporation acquired the land in Survey nos. 21 and 25 and paid compensation to them. According to them, the land in survey Nos. 22 and 24, part of Survey No. 26, is in their possession and that they are entitled to be granted the O. R. Cs.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is an association. According to it the land in Survey Nos. 22 and 24 (new), Survey Nos. 18 and 19/2 (old) was originally held by one Sri Ranga Reddy and after obtaining necessary permission under A. P. Act 12 of 1972, he sold the land in an extent of 2000 sq. yards in favour of smt. Kultar Kour, W/o Mangal Singh in the year 1965 and an extent of 1500 sq. yards in favour of Mangal Singh and thereafter it purchased both the extents from kultar Kour and Mangal Singh through separate sale deeds dated 11. 7. 1975. It pleaded that ever since the date of purchase, it is in possession and enjoyment of the land. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the application filed by the respondents. Several proceedings ensued between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the respondents on the other, before this Court and the Special Court constituted under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act. All these proceedings resulted in an order dated 15. 12. 2000 passed by a Division bench of this Court in WA Nos. 1749, 1520 and 1529 of 2000, wherein it was directed that the petitioner be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the second respondent, initiated by the contesting respondents.

( 4 ) THE petitioner pleaded that the second respondent did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the contesting respondents, on the ground that the subject-matter was not an agricultural land. It was also pleaded that the land is not covered by the provisions of the Act, the contesting respondents did not have the right or locus standi to claim O. R. C. , since they are not in possession of the land and that the identity of the land is in serious dispute. The second respondent overruled the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document