Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Mir Sadath Ali
Vs.
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others
WP Nos.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005
Decided on : Fourteenth Day of November, 2008
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Section 24, 2( c), 30, 5, 6, 7 and 8 , 4(1), Rule 6 - Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act, 1952 - Sections 2(1)(c), (d), (e) (g) (h) and G) - Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Claims – Validity of Order – Writ petitions are filed questioning the common orders passed - For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition - Which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two writ petitions, are mentioned hereunder - Held, Judgment does not help the petitioner because this case falls within the exception contained in the above reproduced portion of the judgment. – Section 30 of the Act provides that the Collector may, by general or special order, authorize any officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar subordinate to him to hold enquiries on his behalf under the Act. – Thus, the Act itself authorizes the Collector to delegate his power of holding enquiry to the authorities specified in the said provision and report sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the instant case is traceable to the said provision. – The Act having thus itself authorized entrustment of such enquiry by respondent No.2, the action of respondent No.2 is inconformity with the ratio contained in the above mentioned Division Bench judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. - carefully analyzed the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and considered in detail the statements of various persons recorded during the enquiry and came to the conclusion that Gokari Chennaiah, the tenant in occupation of the property, is son of Pedda Anthaiah and father-in-law of respondent No.3 and not the son of Papaiah as claimed by the petitioner and respondent No.4 – Indeed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4 have not advanced specific contentions, and in my view rightly, on the correctness of the finding of respondent No.2 in this regard because this being a finding of fact, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not reexamine and substitute its view by re-appreciating the evidence on record even if another view is possible - In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
WP No.2722 of 2005:
2. Respondent No.1 before the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No.2 herein) and appellant in the appeal filed before respondent No.1, filed this writ petition questioning the two orders dated 6.8.1994 and 31.3.2001 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively.
3. As both these writ petitions are filed questioning the common orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, they are heard and being disposed of together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001.
5. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two writ petitions, are mentioned hereunder:
Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition on 13.9.1998 for grant of ORC under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") in respect of Acs.6.09 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.468 and the above mentioned Survey Numbers, along with an application for condonation of delay. While condoning the delay, the claim petition was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, by respondent No.2 for sending a report after conducting preliminary enquiry. After obtaining report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.2 held enquiry. Having considered the respective pleadings of respondent No.3, the petitioner and respondent No.4 and on the basis of the material available before him, including the statements of the parties recorded in the enquiry, respondent No.2 partly allowed the claim petition of respondent No.3 and declared that she is entitled for grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Act for an extent of Acs.3.23 guntas in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed separate appeals under Section 24 of the Act, which were dismissed by respondent No.1 by a common order dated 31.3.2001.
6. The petitioner and respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition Nos.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 respectively against the said orders.
The Respective Pleadings:
7. The case of respondent No.3 is that one Gokari Papaiah was the common ancestor. He had four sons, by name, Pedda Chennaiah, Chinna Chennaiah, Pedda Anthaiah and Chinna Anthaiah. Pedda Chennaiah died issueless. Chinna Chennaiah had three sons, viz., Sayanna, Mallaiah and Narayana, all of whom died. Pedda Antaiah had two sons, by name, Chennaiah and Lingaiah. Vittalaiah, the husband of respondent No.3, is the son of Gokari Chennaiah. Chinna Antaiah had one son by name Pentaiah. Respondent No.4 is the son of Gokari Mallaiah, who represents the branch of Gokari Chinna Chennaiah. The father-in-law of respondent No.3 was the protected tenant of the said land, which was an inam land, and there is a long standing dispute between her father-in-law and Gokari Mallaiah, the father of respondent No.4, regarding the protected tenancy. According to respondent No.3, her father-in-law had been in continuous possession of the said land as a protected tenant prior to the relevant date, viz., 1.11.1973 and also on the said date as a protected tenant. After the death of her father-in-law, her husband- Vittalaiah succeeded to the property and subsequent to the death of her husband, respondent No.3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
8. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner is that his Hither-Basharat AU was the inamdar. The property being mafi inam is not covered by the provisions of the Act. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner
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
