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

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
K. Chandra Prakash and Ors.- Appellants
Versus
Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos.28720 of 2008 and 9027 of 2009
Decided on : 14-06-2021

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5 (5) - Transfer of Property Act - Section 43 - Sale deed - Patta lands - Occupancy Rights Certificate - Whether petitioners are successors-in-interest based on the registered sale deed executed in their favour by the original inamdars in favour of their vendors prior to issuance of ORC – Seeking direction to RDO to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of ORC in their favour in respect of land - Case of writ petitions, in brief, is that originally subject lands are the registered patta lands of Gandaiah, Veeraiah, Lingaiah and Pentaiah. During life time of Gandaiah and Pentaiah, they along with Chowdaiah S/o.late Veeraiah and Smt.Venkatamma W/o.late Veeraiah and Narsimha S/o.Lingaiah have executed registered sale deeds bearing document in favour of vendors of the petitioners herein and possession was also delivered to them - Held, The Act not only envisages grant of ORC in favour of only persons who are enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act but also that they should be in personal cultivation/possession of the subject lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. Unless and until the person meets these two criterion, the ORC cannot be issued - Court opinion that writ petition has to be dismissed on the sole ground that petitioners do not meet the twin requirements of being personal cultivation/possession of the subject land and also that they do not fit into categories of persons envisaged under Section 4 to 8 of Act – Hence, this court does not find any merit in writ petition or grounds to interfere with orders of the Joint Collector and leaving it open to petitioners to agitate their rights and seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court – Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Since the subject lands and parties to both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No.28720 of 2008 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector–II, Ranga Reddy District in file No.F1/1279/2006, dated 06.12.2008, as well as the order passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, in file No.1/4078/2005 dated 27.01.2006 and the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 08.02.2006 granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 and consequently to direct the RDO to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of ORC in their favour in respect of the land in survey No.57 admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Acs.2-09 guntas, survey No.59 admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas, total extent of Ac.5.08 gts., situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. W.P. No.9027 of 2009 is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar in file No.B1/1812/2008 dated 17.12.2008 along with the consequential changes by amending in ROR register of Kokapet Village and any changes in pahani for the year 2008-09 in respect of land in survey No.57 admeasuring Ac.0-29.35 guntas, survey No.58 admeasuring Ac.1-26.75 guntas, and in survey No.59 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas, totally admeasuring Acs.3-35 guntas, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. As against the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, ordering to effect the name of one Samala Sunder Reddy, who claims to have purchased the subject lands from the unofficial respondents under Relinquishment and Release document Nos.1909/2006 and 2843/2008, the writ petitioners have filed W.P.No.9027 of 2009.

5. The case of the writ petitions, in brief, is that originally the subject lands are the registered patta lands of Gandaiah, Veeraiah, Lingaiah and Pentaiah. During the life time of Gandaiah and Pentaiah, they along with the Chowdaiah S/o.late Veeraiah and Smt.Venkatamma W/o.late Veeraiah and Narsimha S/o.Lingaiah have executed registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3659/1987 and 3658/1987 dated 08.05.1987 in favour of the vendors of the petitioners herein and possession was also delivered to them. Subsequently, the petitioners have purchased the subject lands under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.10957/1989 dated 14.09.1989 and 11019/1989 dated 16.09.1989 and their names were also incorporated in the revenue records vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 06.12.1991, and since the date of purchase, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. In the year 2000, petitioners got surveyed the schedule lands through Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, who fixed the peg stores by demarcating the boundaries with meters and bounds under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, petitioners have constructed a compound wall around the subject lands and a labour room therein after obtaining necessary approval from the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners entered into a development agreement-cum-irrevocable GPA vide registered document No.15448/2005 dated 14.10.2005 for developing the property. While things stood thus, the petitioners came to know that the subject lands were shown as Mafi Inam in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, which attract the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for short). When the petitioners have questioned the unofficial respondents for not informing the nature of land, at the time of purchase, they have given statements before the RDO on 21.11.2006 expressing no-objection for issuance of ORC and pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners herein. In spite of saying so, the unofficial respondents have submitted a separate application in Form No.1 before the Deputy Coll

          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
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top