IMPORTANT POINT
A party cannot raise inconsistent claims post-remand, and the validity of adoption must be proven in a competent court.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel appears for appellants.

Mr. J.C. Francis, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28358 of 2007.

3. Brief facts:

Appellant No.1 (B.Raghunatham (Died) per L.Rs.) approached Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) by filing a petition under Section 7 (1) read with Section 10 under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘Act, 1955’) for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in respect of land admeasuring Acs.14.20 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Patancheru Village. It was further case of the appellant No.1 before the RDO that he got the share of one of his brothers, namely, B.Venkata Ratnam, on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of an undertaking. The RDO issued final patta certificate under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, (for short, ‘Rules’), i.e., granted ORCs., vide order dated 13.09.1994 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.14.20 guntas.

3.1 The unofficial respondents (legal heirs of B.Venkata Ratnam) challenged the order of RDO by filing an appeal under Section 24 (a) of the Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by order, dated 29.04.2005, cancelled the ORCs issued in favour of appellant No.1 to the extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. Assailing the said order, appellant No.1 filed W.P.No.11879 of 2005. The learned Single Judge by order, dated 19.07.2005, set aside the order(s) of the Joint Collector and RDO and remanded the matter to the primary authority i.e., RDO to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties afresh after affording an opportunity to both the parties.

3.2 RDO by order, dated 17.02.2007, accepted the plea advanced by appellant No.1 and rejected the plea of unofficial respondents. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant No.1 before the RDO that Venkata Kistaiah had no sons and therefore Venkata Kistaiah adopted the appellant No.1 and thereby he became entitled to tenancy rights of Venkata Kistaiah to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. Unofficial respondents filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector by order, dated 10.12.2007, granted ORCs, to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. The order of the Joint Collector is challenged in W.P.No.28358 of 2007. Learned Single Judge by order, dated 01.04.2013, upheld the order of the Joint Collector and set aside the order of the RDO, dated 17.02.2007. It is the order of the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the writ appeal.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that appellant No.1’s father Venkata Kistaiah was a protected tenant and had no issues and therefore adopted appellant and provided education and performed the marriage.

It is further submitted that the Joint Collector without notice to appellants had set aside the order of primary authority.

4.1 It is submitted that the appellant(s) were forced to take the plea of adoption and the plea of adoption advanced before the revenue authorities after the remand can at best be a mutually inconsistent plea, but not a destructive plea. It is also submitted that appellants claim was never for entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.29.03 guntas and appellant consistently claimed the relief for Acs.14.20 guntas even after remand. It is urged that no adjudication was made in respect of the initial ground/plea i.e., claim of Acs.7.10 guntas on the basis of undertaking on payment of Rs.1.50,000/- by appellant (sale and purchase). It is further submitted that appellants have option to choose or elect any of the plea as the relief sought is the same (i.e., ORCs for Acs.14.20 guntas), and that the plea of adoption is an election in response to the stand of the unofficial respondents. It is pointed out that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is only a species of estoppel. It is lastly submitted