Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
G.V.NARSIMHA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
SYED AKTAR ALI - Respondent
Decided On : 04-24-87
ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA) ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT, 1955 - SEC. 2 (A), 3, 4, 8, 9 (2), 10, 24 (1), (2), 28 - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - DATE OF VESTING - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - NON-PROTECTED TENANT - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, purchasers of inam land from the original landholder, challenged the grant of occupancy rights to the respondent, a non-protected tenant, by the Joint Collector. The respondent had obtained a lease from the original landholder in 1966 and claimed rights under Section 8 of the Act as a non-protected tenant. The land was originally agricultural but had been converted to non-agricultural use, and the respondent was using it for a saw-mill.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act was maintainable as the impugned order of the Joint Collector was not only passed on a reference under Section 24 (2) but also on an appeal against matters arising under Section 10 read with Section 8. The court further held that the crucial date for vesting of inams in the State was 20-7-1955 and not 1-11-1973, and that the rights of the parties for grant of patta were to be based on the respective position of the claimants as on 20-7-1955. Accordingly, the respondent, whose tenancy started on 15-10-1966, was not entitled to an occupancy certificate under Section 8, while the petitioners, as the successors-in-interest of the inamdar, were entitled to occupancy pattas under Section 4 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act was maintainable? 2. What was the crucial date of vesting of the inams in the State? 3. Whether the respondent (non-protected tenant) was entitled to a certificate of occupancy under Section 10 and to be declared as holder under Section 9 (2) or whether the inamdar was entitled to an occupancy certificate under Section 4?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revision petition was maintainable as the impugned order of the Joint Collector was not only passed on a reference under Section 24 (2) but also on an appeal against matters arising under Section 10 read with Section 8. The court interpreted Section 28 of the Act and held that the prohibition against revisions applied only to primary orders passed by the Collector (R.D.O.) which were either appealable under Section 24 (1) or against which a reference lay under Section 24 (2), but not to appellate orders of the Collector (i.e., Joint Collector) made under Section 24 (1) in matters concerning Section 10 i.e., grant of occupancy right certificates. 2. The court held that the crucial date for vesting of inams in the State was 20-7-1955, the date on which the Act came into force. The court relied on previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court to support its interpretation. 3. The court held that the respondent, whose tenancy started on 15-10-1966, was not entitled to an occupancy certificate under Section 8 as his tenancy was not in existence prior to 20-7-1955. The court further held that the petitioners, as the successors-in-interest of the inamdar, were entitled to occupancy pattas under Section 4 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Joint Collector, and held that the petitioners were entitled to occupancy pattas under Section 4 of the Act, while the respondent was not entitled to an occupancy certificate under Section 8.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed under S. 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (herein after called the Act.)
( 2 ) THIS Revision is an off-shoot of the remand order and directions issued by me in C. R. P. No. 3087 of 1980 on 4-4-1985. That C. R. P. was disposed along with Second Appeal No. 1035/81 and W. P. No. 8034/1981 on 4-4-1985. Thereafter, there was an appeal to the Supreme Court of india, and under interim order passed in that appeal, the Supreme Court desired that the present C. R. P. arising out of the decision of the Joint Collector (Prescribed authority under the Act) should be disposed of. That is how the present revision has come before me.
( 3 ) THE petitioners in this revision are Sri G. V. Narsimha Reddy and g. V. Mohan Reddi and they purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 19-8-1973 from its original owner-namely, the landholder Sri Syed Mustafa Hussain Quadri. The suit Property is admittedly inam land .
( 4 ) THE respondent before me is Syed Aktar Ali, who had earlier obtained a lease dated 5-10-1966 from the original land-holder Sri Syed mustafa hussain Quadri and the respondent later claimed a right to be registered as an occupant, claimin rights under Sec. 8 of the Act as a nonprotected tenant .
( 5 ) THE land was originally agricultural land but came to use as non-agricultural land. In fact, the respondent tenant has been using the land for the purposes of a saw-mill.
( 6 ) THE application for registration was filed by une respondent as a non-protected tenant on 26-9-75 before the Collector. It is not in dispute that under the Act, Collector means, the concerned Revenue Divisioal On officer. The R,d. O. rejected the respondent s application by an order dated 3-12-77 and against that order, the respondent had preferred C. R. P. No. 3087 of 1980 to this Court. By my judgment dated 4-4-85, I allowed the revision and held that in case there is a question as to the validity conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural under Sec. 9 (2) the R. D. O. has to make a reference of the matter to the prescribed authority (the Joint collector) under Sec. 24 (2) of the Act for decision.
( 7 ) AFTER my judgment dated 4-4-1985 the R. D. O. heard the parties and passed fresh orders (a) referring the question of conversion to the Joint collector under Sec. 24 (2) and (b) rejecting the petitioner s application for grant of occupancy certificate.
( 8 ) THEREAFTER the Joint Collector, by his order dated 27-5-1986 now impugned, framed three issues : (1) Whether the petitioner Sri Syed Aktar Ali is entitled for occupancy rights under the Inam Abolition Act, 1955 ? (2) Whether putting agricultural land in S. No. 1901 measuring 0. 21 gunta of Nirmal to non-agricultural use without permission of the Collector is a contravention of the provisions of the A. P. (T. A.) Abolition of Inam Act ? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 9 of the inam Abolition Act as he put the agricultural land to non-agricultural use, without permission from the Collector ? and held on issue No. 1 that the respondent (non-protected tenant) was entitled to an occupancy certificate and on issue No. 2 that the conversion of the land into non-agricultural land was not illegal, on issue No. 3 he held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 9. The Joint Colle;- tcr accordingly granted occupancy rights to the respondent.
( 9 ) IT is against this order that the two Petitioners, the purchasers from the land-holder, have, filed this revision under Sec. 28 of the Act.
( 10 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the two petitioners sri P. Ramchandra Reddy and Sri Gopal Reddy that the Joint Collector erred in thinking that the respondent was entitled to occupancy rights. It is pointed out that, under the Act, the relevant date of vesting was 20-7-1955 and not 1-11-1973 as opined by the Joint Collector. On that basis it is
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
