IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that occupancy rights under the Inams Act require proof of personal cultivation and that revenue authorities have jurisdiction to grant such rights based on historical possession.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.

Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.324 of 2009 and respondent No.4 in W.A.No.325 of 2009.

Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 in W.A.No.324 of 2009.

Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.325 of 2009.

2. Writ Appeal Nos.324 and 325 of 2009 are filed challenging the common order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 respectively.

3. Brief facts:

In Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001, writ petitioner assailed the validity of order, dated 06.08.1994, passed by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (respondent No.2) and confirmed by Joint Collector (respondent No.1) vide order, dated 31.03.2001, whereby Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short “ORC”) were granted to respondent No.3 in respect of Ac.3.23 guntas of land in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.1. In Writ Petition No.2722 of 2005, the writ petitioner is respondent No.1 before RDO and the appellant in the appeal filed before Joint Collector, the writ petition is filed questioning orders dated 06.08.1994 and 31.03.2001 passed by RDO and Joint Collector.

3.2. For purpose of reference, W.A.No.324 of 2009 (W.P.No.18038 of 2001) is being considered.

3.3. Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition on 13.09.1998 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Inams Act, 1955”) in respect of Ac.6.09 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.468 and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471. The claim petition was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Rajendranagar, by RDO for a report after conducting preliminary enquiry. After obtaining report from the MRO, RDO held enquiry. Having considered the respective pleadings of respondent No.3, the appellant (writ petitioner) and respondent No.4 and on the basis of the material on record before him, including the statements of the parties recorded in the enquiry, RDO partly allowed the claim petition of respondent No.3 and declared that she is entitled for grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Inams Act, 1955 for an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant and respondent No.4 filed separate appeals under Section 24 of the Inams Act, 1955, which were dismissed by Joint Collector by a common order dated 31.03.2001. The appellant and respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition Nos.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 challenging the said orders.

3.4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by a common order, dated 14.11.2008, holding that the RDO, after in-depth consideration of the respective claims of all the three parties, viz., respondent No.3, the appellant and respondent No.4, held that respondent No.3 is entitled to be registered as occupant. The learned Single Judge further held that neither the appellant nor respondent No.4 could make out any case warranting Court’s interference with the order passed by RDO as confirmed by Joint Collector. It is this common order, which is under challenge in the present writ appeals.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an application without impleading the inamdar is not maintainable and the entire proceedings of RDO are without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the appellants have admitted that father of respondent No.4 was a tenant in the subject lands. It is also submitted that when a question arises as to whether a person is deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of land under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Tenancy Act, 1950’), the same is to be decided as per Section 35 of the Tenancy Act, 1950, on an applicatio