IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 is valid and consistent with Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, affirming the authority of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

Heard Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1, Sri K.S. Suneel, learned counsel representing Chandrasen Law Offices appears for petitioner No.2 and Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Herur Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. Petitioners filed this writ petition seeking declaration of the Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (‘Rules’ for brevity) as ultra vires to object Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for brevity) and contrary to Section 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 and further declare the Rule 18 of Rules as null and void.

3. Brief facts of case:

3.1 The claim of the petitioner No.1 is that her husband namely late Nambakkam Sreenivas Chary is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in Survey No.956 and Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.957, total comes to Acs.7.10 guntas situated at Metpally Village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. After the death of her husband, petitioner No.1 has made application for mutation of her name in the revenue records and her daughters have given consent for the same. When the said application is pending consideration before the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy Mandal, she had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of P.Nagaraju to the land to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in Survey No.956 and also handed over the possession to the said person, when the Tahsildar failed to mutate her name in the revenue records, the petitioner No.1 along with said P.Nagaraju filed suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy making Mandal Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer as party defendants and the said suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, she filed application seeking restoration of the said suit, when the said application is pending, she came to know that respondent No.5 had issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (‘ORC’ for brevity) in Form No.III in File No.B/167/2010 dated 26.03.2010 in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 basing on the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Wanaparthy dated 20.02.2010, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.6 and 7 have purchased the said land from her husband by way of simple sale deed dated 15.06.1998. Questioning the said order dated 26.03.2010, petitioner No.1 filed appeal in Case No.F2/15/2010 before respondent No.4 and the appellate authority erroneously dismissed the appeal by its order dated 10.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1 preferred the revision and the same is pending. In this writ petition the petitioners have questioned Rule 18 of Rules on the ground that the said rule is contrary to the provisions of the Sections 10 and 24 read with Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.

4. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners:

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 contended that the District Collector alone is the competent authority and is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal filed against the order passed under Section 10 of the Act and pass orders. In the instance case respondent No.4 passed order in Case No.F2/15/2010 on 10.01.2011, without jurisdiction.

4.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(a) read with Sections 10 and 24 of Act, the Collector is competent authority to enquire and to issue certificate including ORC and any order of the Collector under Section 24 is appealable to the prescribed authority. In the case on hand, the Revenue Divisional Officer exercising the powers under Section 10 of the Act issued ORC in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 on 26.03.2010, though he is not having jurisdiction. Similarly, the Joint Collector is also is not having jurisdiction to pass the order in appeal Case No.F2/15/2010 dated 10