IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Syed Kazim Ali Ghazi and others – Appellants
Versus
State of A.P, Rep. by its Secretary and others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 11059 of 2014
Decided on : 29-01-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Writ of Certiorari - The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate granted in 1979 without cogent reasons and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry, which was held to be arbitrary and illegal. The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in administrative decisions to ensure transparency and fairness. (Paras 14, 16, 28)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the Joint Collector exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter, which is not permissible under Section 24 of the Act. The appeal was filed after a significant delay without proper justification, undermining the principles of natural justice. (Paras 16, 18)
ORDER:
Heard the Learned Senior Designate Counsel Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4 and Learned Counsel Mr. G. Raghupathi Reddy appearing on behalf of Respondents No.6, 7 and 8. Mr. B. Shanker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 29 to 34, 61. Mr A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 19 to 21. Mr B.V.Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.63.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer in W.P.Nos.11059 of 2014 as under :
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
4. The relevant portion of the orders impugned dated 01.02.2014 in Case No. F1/2200/2009, reads as under:
The ORC holders are denying the claim of the appellants in both the appeals and even the Protected Tenancy of their ancestors. A Certified Copy of the P.T. Register for the year 1950 of Bowenpally Vg, relating to Old Sy. No.17 filed by the appellants issued by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal reveals that in Col. No.9 of the said register meant for the PT. the names of the P.Ts are found recorded with the area of Ac.10-19 gts, each occupied by them as detailed in Col.No. 10 of the said P.T. Register. A perusal of the certified copy of the orders under appeal vide Ret.No.A1/1233/75 dt. 11.1975 and signed on 31.10.1975 by the RDO, Hyd. West Divn. shows that it categorically says that there are no protected tenants over the suit land. This version of the RDO is contrary to the contents of the said Certified Copy of P.T. Register relating to Old Sy.No.17 of Bowenpally. This position of the records is evident that proper enquiry was not conducted by the lower court before issuing the orders under appeal and that no notice was given to the appellants herein as well as to the LRs of the Inamdars and their lineal descendants also. In the light of above position of facts & records I have no hesitation to set aside the order under appeal passed by the then RDO Hyd. West Divn. in File No.At/1233/75 dt. 11.1979 (signed by RDO on 31.10.1979) granting ORC in favours of the Inamdars/LRs being successorsin-interest in respect of land bearing Sy No.36 (Old Sy.No.17/1 & 17/2) and the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Lower Court with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry by issuing notices to all the appellants & Respondents in both the appeals including the legal heirs & co-parceners of the Inamdars as well as the appellants herein giving wide publicity of the enquiry & pass appropriate orders duly examining the aspect of protected tenancy claimed over the said lands. Accordingly both the appeals are disposed of.”
5. The relevant paragraph Nos. 5 and 7, of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.6, 7 and 8 herein in W.P.No.16686 of 2014, which had been filed by one D.S.N. Raju and 23 others seeking an identical relief as in the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the orders impugned of the 1st Respondent in Case No.F1/2200/2009 and Case No.F1/7122/2009, dated 01.02.2014 whereby and where under the 2nd Respondent herein had set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate in File No.A/1233/1975, dated 28.11.1979, reads as under :
Chief Justice of A.P. Vs. L.V.A. Dikishitulu
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam Vs. K.Suresh Reddy
Ithagani Lachaiah Vs. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nalgonda
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy & Another Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Others
Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984
S.Santhanam & Others Vs. State of A.P., Revenue Department
Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others
State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Ragha Natha
Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West Bengal & Others
Vorla Ramchandra Reddy & Others Vs. Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District
The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in administrative decisions and ruled that the Joint Collector exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter without cogent reasons.
Delay in challenging occupancy rights undermines legal integrity; authorities must provide reasons for judicial decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely appeals and the importance of recording reasons in administrative decisions, restoring the Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish possession for grant of Occupancy Rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and t....
Protected tenants - Restoration of possession of lands - Application filed by appellants/petitioners for restoration under Section 32 of Tenancy Act, were far beyond reasonable time and lacked bonafi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.