The executive instructions contained in G. O. Ms. No. 1159, Revenue (F) Department dated 29th October, 1976, are not valid and no land can be resumed by evicting the occupant thereof in pursuance to such executive instructions.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to have purchased Survey Nos. 599 600 and 603 ad-measuring Ac. 8-14 guntas situated at Lingal Ghanpur village of Jangaon Taluk Warangal District from one Rangareddy, the inamdar of the said lands. The inams in the Hyderabad State were abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Though the Act was passed by the Legislature, it was not enforced in its entirety. Only Section 1, Sec. 2 sec. 3 (except clauses (d) (g) (h) and (i) of sub-sec. (2) and Sections 39 to 34 and section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purpose of the aforesaid sections and sections 36 and 37 were brought into force with effect from 20-7-1956. The rest of the act remained unenforced. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the A. P. (Telangana Area) inams Abolition Act, 1967. The said Act purported to repeal the 1955 Act. The constitutional validity of the said 1967 Act was challenged in this court and the Act was struck down. Thereafter, another Division Bench of this court held that the striking down of 1967 act has the effect of reviving the 1955 Act. Of course, the revival was in the same truncated fashion in which it was enforced on 20-7-1956, thereafter, by another Notification, the entire Act was brought into force with effect from 1-11 -1973. Rules were then framed for carrying out the purpose of the Act contained in G. O. Ms, No. 870 Revenue (G) Dated 27-6-1975, Rule 5 of the said Rules reads as follows :-"5 Application for the purpose of registration of inamdar and the like :- (1) Application for the purpose of registration of inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and nonprotected tenant or successor-in-interest, as an occupant under sections 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Act in respect of the inam land, which was in his possession on the date of vesting, shall be made to the Collector within ninety days from the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette. (2) Every such application shall be in form No. I and shall he signed by the applicant. (3) Where the application is made by any, person other than the-inamdar, such inamdar shall be made a party to the applicattion". The petitioner filed an application for registering him as an occupant within the prescribed period as mentioned in Rule 5. His case was that, having purchased the said land from the inamdar, he was a sue- cessor-in-interest and therefore, entitled to be registered as an occupant. No formal orders appear to have been passed on this application, but a communication was sent by the Special Tahsildar, abolition of Inams Warangal Division tothe Tahsildar Jangaon (Letter rc. No. 297/75 dated 4-1-1977)stating that the lands in question have been sold away privately by inamdars in favour of the petitioner "contrary to the essential conditions of inalienability of inam lands without the prior permission of the Government, as envisaged in G. O. Ms. No. 1159, Revenue (F) Department dated 29th October. 1976" It was, therefore, stated that such alienated lands are liable to be resumed by the Government and the Tahsildar, Jangaon was requested to take action for resumption of the said lands and report compliance immediately. It is then that the present writ petition has been filed; the petitioner is asking for the quashing of G. O. Ms. No. 1159 Revenue (F) department dated 29th October, 1976, which contains the executive instructions issued by the Govt. to the Inam Abolition Authorities.

( 2 ) THE main contention raised by Sri Haridatha Ready the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that Rule 5 specifically recognises an application being made, not only by the inamdar, Kabiz-e-Kaciim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant, but also by their successors-in-interest. Where the alienation is subsequent to the date of abolition i. e. , subsequent to 20-7-1956. it if. argued, the rule of inalienabi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document