Chama Narasimha Reddy vs Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(AP) 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V.V.S. RAO, J.
Chama Narasimha Reddy and others —Petitioner
v.
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and others —Respondent
W. P. No.30 12 of 2002 and Batch and CRP No.4223 of 2003
Decided on 17-11-2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
G.P. for Revenue for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. C.R. Pratap Reddy, Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
Mr. Y. Ashok Raj, Counsel for Respondent No.8.
Mr. K Raghuveer Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.9.
Mr. A. Pulla Reddy, Counsel for Respondent Nos.10 to 14.
G. P. for Arbitration for Respondent No.15.
Mr. P. Shiv Kumar, Counsel for Respondent Nos.16 to 21.

Headnote:
A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Sections 4, 10 – A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 – Section 13, 28 – Land Dispute – Sale – Whether petitioners and respondent No.9 are entitled for ORC based on the agreements of sale executed by Vakiti Pulla Reddy – Whether the grant of ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 7 in W.P. is not valid – Whether respondents 16 to 21 are entitled for ORC in respect of land – Whether the ORC granted to Madugula Punnaiah, father of the third respondent in W.P., is not valid – Whether the C.R.P. filed by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, under Section 28 of Act, is maintainable – Held, There cannot be any dispute that respondents 10 to 14 have to work out their remedies; if such course is possible under law - by pursuing appropriate authority under different Acts as observed by this Court in C.R.P – Court has to consider claim of (i) petitioners, (ii) respondent No.9, (iii) respondent No.15 (Authorised Officer) and (iv) respondents 16 to 21 – It has failed to produce any evidence before Authorities or before this Court and indeed applying ratio in Lokraj (12 supra), sale in favour of 9th respondent by inamdar cannot be recognized for the purpose of grant of ORC under Section 4 read with 10 of Inams Abolition Act – Grant of ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 7 is well supported by documentary evidence and the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act – Right of protected tenants could not be disturbed by proceedings under land Reforms Act and even if declarant surrendered excess land, tenants can still claim rights under Inams Abolition Act or Tenancy Act before appropriate forum – Subject to the question of limitation and other procedural aspects, respondents 10 to 14 can if so advised always agitate the matter before competent authority – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed

ORDER

Introduction

The background facts in all these writ petitions and the civil revision petition are same. The rival claim of the parties - be it petitioners or respondents; is in respect of the same land admeasuring about Acs.55.00 in Survey Nos.210 to 213, 221 to 225 (for the sake of convenience referred to hereinafter as schedule land) situated at Papayyaguda hamlet of Kuntloor village of Hayathnagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy District. The contentions raised and the documents relied on are almost the same. It is therefore expedient to pass common order.

Background facts:

2. The schedule land and other extents of land (total extent of 300 acres in same survey numbers) originally belonged to one Vakiti Pulla Reddy, husband of eighth respondent. After enactment of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called, the Land Reforms Act), he filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), who is represented by the respondent No.15. He was declared surplus landholder and while doing so in accordance with Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act, land which was in possession of Gaddam Babaiah, Gaddam Somaiah and others, the protected tenants, was excluded because under A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter called, the Tenancy Act), the protected tenants are entitled to statutory protection/ownership rights. It appears the protected tenants or their legal heirs filed necessary applications under Section 10 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereafter called, the Inams Abolition Act) and the Inams Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of land admeasuring about Acs.50.00 in favour of the protected tenants. Insofar as this land for which protected tenants are registered as occupants is concerned, there is not much dispute in these proceedings. The dispute, however is regarding another piece of land admeasuring about Acs.55.00. This dispute started some time in 1994 as four groups/categories of persons filed four claims before RDO claiming ORC. The petitioners, respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 filed applications under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act before RDO (second respondent). Respondents 16 to 21 claiming themselves to be the legal heirs/successors of another protected tenant joined the dispute at the stage of appeal though they did not file applications before the RDO. The details of these claims are as follows.

(i) Inamdars Claim: The eighth respondent wife of late Pulla Reddy, filed application in Form-I for grant of ORC in respect of land admeasuring Acs.58.01 guntas under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act. The same was dealt with by RDO in File No.J/3245/94, who dismissed the claim on 19-09-1997. Her appeal in F1/6915/1997 was also dismissed by the appellate authority, namely, the Joint Collector (first respondent) on 22.12.2001. Failing to get ORC, the eighth respondent then filed W.P.No.7521 of 2001 but the same was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 23-07-2001. Therefore the claim made by the legal heir of original pattadar/inamdar no more survives.

(ii) Purchasers Claim: In this category, there are two groups.

(a) The ninth respondent, namely, Popular Weaker Co-operative Housing Society filed claim petition In Form-I for grant of ORC for the land admeasuring Acs.55.07 guntas alleging that they entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with late Pulla Reddy on 25-08-1982, and therefore, they may be registered as occupants under Section 10 of the Act. The claim of the said Society in File No.J/1398/96 was rejected. They were unsuccessful before the Joint Collector in proceedings in F1/7864/ 1997, by reason of the orders of the appellate authority, dated 22-12-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the ninth respondent filed W.P.No.3972 of 2002.

(b) The petitioners Chama Narsimha Reddy and Chama Pratap Reddy both are brothers; allege that they purchased land admeasuring Acs.68

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

gpt-4