Back
2013 Supreme(AP) 1048
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Shivareddypally Ananthaiah (Died per LRs) & Others
Versus
The Joint Collector, R.R. District & Others
WP. No. 16335 of 2004 & C.R.P. No. 4347 of 2001
Decided on: 27-11-2013
For the Petitioners:Vijayakumar Devineni, V.L. Surendra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:GP for Revenue, A. Narsimha Reddy, C.R. Pratap Reddy, K. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - A.P. Inam Abolition Act, 1955 - Section 7 and 24 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Registration Act, 1908 - Tenancy Act - Section 38-D - Criminal Petition - Petitioners made application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to them under Section 7 of the A.P. Inam Abolition Act for an extent of said application was numbered as File - Held, Counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the CRP under Section 28 of the Act is not maintainable challenging an order passed under Section 24 of the Act in an appeal by the 1st respondent concerning Section 10 of the Act - On this aspect there are conflicting views expressed by this Court - Learned single Judge held that the Revision under Section 28 is maintainable but in Multan a contrary view has been expressed. Noting this conflict, in this Court considered the Revision filed under Section 28 of the Act as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, leaving the resolution of the conflict, for an appropriate occasion, by a Division Bench of this Court - In this view of the matter, Court too would adopt the same approach and consider the CRP filed by the petitioners as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Therefore, Court rejected the contention of the respondents that the CRP is not maintainable - Petition allowed. (Para 27)
1. As these two cases are inter connected, these two cases are being disposed of by this common order.
2. One Chandramma, W/o. Late Hema Reddy (6th respondent in the writ petition) was the Inamdar of an extent of Acs.15.20 gts. in Sy.No.1 of Parigi Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said land, Shivareddypalli Yellappa (for short, 'Yellappa') was a protected tenant. He had three sons by name Venkataiah, Ananthaiah and Narayana. Ananthaiah died and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition, who are also petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the CRP, are his legal representatives. The 4th petitioner in the writ petition, who is also the 5th petitioner in the CRP, is the widow of Narayana.
3. The petitioners made application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella (the 2nd respondent in the writ petition and in the CRP) for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short, 'ORC') to them under Section 7 of the A.P. (T.A.) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 for an extent of Acs.11.04 gts. in Sy.No.1. The said application was numbered as File No.L/2562/1994.
4. One Gunjari Venkataiah (4th respondent in writ petition) and Uppari Somalingam (5th respondent in writ petition) claimed to have purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 each on the basis of an unregistered and unstamped sale deed dt.26.12.1957 allegedly executed in their favour by the Inamdar, Late Hema Reddy. They also filed applications under Section 8 of the said Act for ORC. Their applications were numbered as File Nos.L/6441/88 and L/8810/89 respectively.
5. By order dt.22.07.1994, the 2nd respondent granted ORC to Gunjari Venkataiah and Uppari Somalingam for an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. and Ac.1.30 gts. By a separate order dt.07.04.1995 in L/2562/1994, the 2nd respondent granted ORC to the petitioners in respect of only Ac.0.16 gts. in Sy.No.1 and rejected their claim in respect of the rest of the land.
6. Aggrieved by the order dt.07.04.1995 in File No.L/2562/1994 passed by 2nd respondent granting them ORC only for Ac.0.16 gts. and rejecting their claim for the total extent of Acs.11.04 gts., the petitioners filed under Section 24 of the Act, an appeal in File No.F1/4893/95 before the Jt. Collector, Ranga Reddy District (the 1st respondent in the writ petition and in the CRP). By order dt.05.02.2001, the 1st respondent dismissed it. Challenging the same, CRP.No.4347 of 2001 is filed by the petitioners.
7. The petitioners also filed appeal vide case No.F1/6289/1994 before the 1st respondent challenging the grant of ORC to Gunjari Venkataiah and Uppari Somalingam (respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the writ petition) for Ac.1.00 and Ac.1.30 gts. in Sy.No.1.
8. The Inamdar's wife Smt. Chandramma (the 6th respondent in the writ petition) also challenged these orders granting ORC to Gunjari Venkataiah and Uppari Somalingam by filing Appeal in case No.F1/6974/1994 before the 1st respondent.
9. Uppari Somalingam also filed another appeal being case No.F1/9647/1994 before 1st respondent against Gunjari Venkataiah challenging the grant of ORC to the latter in respect of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.1.
10. By a common order dt.19.06.2004, the 1st respondent dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent granting ORC to petitioners for Ac.0.16 gts., to Gunjari Venkataiah for Ac.1.00 and to Uppari Somalingam for Ac.1.30 gts. in Sy.No.1.
11. This common order dt.19.06.2004 is challenged by the petitioners in WP.No.16335 of 2004.12. It is pertinent to note that the sale deed dt.26.12.1957 allegedly executed by Late Hema Reddy, the husband of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, Smt. Chandramma is only in respect of Ac.2.00 and was executed in favour of Gunjari Balaiah, the father of Gunjari Venkataiah and Uppari Narayana, father of Uppari Somalingam, jointly. It is an unregistered and unstamped document in Urdu.
13. It is also important to note that the Pahani for the year 1973-74 for the extent of Acs.15.22 gts. in Sy.No.1 shows Hema Reddy as Pattedar and the following persons as occupa
