SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 215

2011(3) ALT 108
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
Defence Estates Officer
Versus
N. Rani Bai & Others
Writ Appeal No.900 of 2010
Decided on: 11-03-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - B. Adinarayana Rao, Advocate, R3 & R4 - Government Pleader for Revenue.

Headnote:A) A.P. (T.A.) ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT, 1955, Section 4 (1)(e):- If any person other than Inamdar raises constructions or buildings on the lands in question, the Inamdar cannot be registered as Inamdar. (Para 13)

       B) A.P. (T.A.) ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT, 1955, Section 9:- If the conversion is not otherwise contrary to the laws in force, any private building owned by a person on the inam lands is entitled to retain the building as the title vest on him with effect from the coming into force of the Act even though the agricultural land is converted into residential purpose. (Para 18)

       C) A.P. (T.A.) ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT, 1955, Sections 4 and 9:- Occupancy rights issued in favour of the writ petitioner in pursuance of a compromise entered into between him and the Legal Representatives of Inamdar does not give him any right in precedence of the claim of the Defence Estate Officer who is in occupation of the buildings on the Inam buildings as on the date of coming into force of A.P. (T.A.) Inam Abolition of Inams Act. This occupancy right is in violation of the provisions of Section 4 and 9 of the Act. Writ petition filed by such holder of occupancy rights is not maintainable and hence the order in the writ petition remanding the matter to the joint collector is set aside. (Para 19 to 21)

Judgment

(V. Suri Appa Rao, J.)

1. This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30-4-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6522 of 2008, whereby the learned single Judge set aside the impugned order dated 06-02-2007 in Case No.F1/7/2005 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district i.e., the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent with certain directions.

2. Brief facts leading to this writ appeal are as follows:

One Narsinga Rao was the inamdar of Ac.50-00 of land in old Survey No.279 of Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. Late Namasivayam, father of the petitioners, was the permanent tenant in respect of the lands of an extent of Ac.49-39 gts., pursuant to a perpetual lease granted in his favour on 27th Dai 1320 Fasli (corresponding year 1910) by late Narsinga Rao, inamdar. The petitioners’ father Namasivayam died in the year 1938. After his death, Smt. Kannamma, wife of Namasivayam, was in possession and enjoyment of the land. In the survey conducted in the year 1944, the land in Survey No.279 was divided into 6 Survey Nos., viz., Survey Nos.349, 350, 351 and 352 aggregating Ac.13-19 gts., in Survey Nos.602 and 603 aggregating an extent of Ac.36-20 gts. After the abolition of the imams and conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenants, Smt. Kannamma, wife of late Namasivayam, who was in possession of the land, submitted an application for grant of occupancy of lands under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Similarly, Smt. Radhamma, wife of the Inamdar late Narsinga Rao, submitted an application in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.602 and 603. The 1st respondent-The Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad hired an extent of Ac.32-55 gts., of land in Survey Nos.602 and 603 with effect from 25-02-1963 for military purposes. The rest of the land in Survey Nos.602 and 603 and other Survey numbers was in possession of Smt. Kannamma, mother of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district rejected the claim of Smt. Kannamma, mother of the petitioners, in his proceedings dated 30-11-1977 in File No.1147/75 and granted occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos.602 and 603 in favour of Smt. Radhamma, wife of the Inamdar late Narsinga Rao. Aggrieved by the said orders, Smt. Kannamma, mother of the petitioners, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The same was remanded to the 3rd respondent. During the remand proceedings, the 1st respondent also claimed the said land on the ground that the land is under their occupation. After enquiry, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 18-02-1980 in File No.A1/2720/79 rejecting the claim of the 1st respondent in respect of the land in Survey Nos.602 and 603. The 3rd respondent rejected the claim of Smt. Kannamma, mother of the petitioners, also and accepted the claim of Smt. Radhamma, wife of the Inamdar. Against the said order, Smt. Kannamma, mother of the petitioners, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent who passed an order dated 13-10-1981 in favour of Smt. Kannamma for the entire extent of land and directed issuance of occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos.602 and 603. The 1st respondent did not prefer any appeal against the orders of the 3rd respondent. But, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent were questioned in W.P.Nos.8923 and 8870 of 1981 before this Court and by order dated 25-4-1982 this Court set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter to him for consideration on the specific questions framed. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent again passed an order dated 20-01-1987 rejecting the claim of Smt. Kannamma and accepting the claim of Smt. Radhamma, wife of the Inamdar, against which Smt. Kannamma filed W.P.No.5094 of 1987 before this Court. By judg

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top