JUDGMENT :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. In W.P. No. 913 of 2002, petitioner assailed the order dated 27.07.2001 in Appeal No. F2/1/2000 confirming the order dated 22.12.1999 of the original authority rejecting the claim of petitioner to grant Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Before learned single Judge, two decisions of two Division Benches were cited, namely B. Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others 1993(2) An.WR 84 (DB) and S.Veera Reddy and another vs. Chettapalli Chandraiah and others, I 994 SCC Online AP 510. On consideration of these two decisions, learned Judge opined that there is conflict of opinion in these two decisions on the entitlement of purchaser of inam land from Inamdar to apply for ORC under the Act. Learned Judge therefore opined that the conflict should be resolved by a Bench of two Judges or more. The relevant paragraphs of the Order dated 24.03.2014 in W.P. No. 913 of 2002 read as under:

From the brief summary of respective submissions what emanates is that this Court in the decisions reported in Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh [1978 (2) An.W.R. page 31] S.Veera Reddy and another v. Chetlapali Chandraiah and others [1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB)], S.Narasimha and others v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy and another [2006 (2) ALD 621] and Bhimavarapu Venkaiah and another v. R.D.O., Kothagudem and others [1999 (4) ALD 219] has taken the view that the purchaser of land from an Inamdar after the abolition of Inams can also maintain an application for grant of ORC but in the decisions reported in B. Ramender Reddy' and others vs. District Collector, Hyderabad and others [1993 (2) An.W.R. 84 (DB)], Chama Narsimha Reddy and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district at Hyderabad and others (2007(3) ALT 265], this Court has taken a contrary view that once the Inam is abolished, all the pre-existing rights are abolished and a purchaser from the Inamdar cannot maintain an application for grant of O.R.C.

In my opinion, the views expressed by the learned Judges in B. Ramender Reddy's case (supra) and S.Veera Reddy's case (supra) are conflicting with each other on the entitlement of a purchaser from an Inamdar to apply for ORC under the Act. Ramender Reddy's case is decided by their Lordships Mr. Justice V.Sivaraman Nair and Ms. Justice S.V. Maruthi, S.Veera Reddy's case (supra) was decided by their Lordships Mr. Justice S.S.M. Quadri (as he then was) and Ms. Justice S.V. Maruthi. One of the learned Judges Justice S.V. Maruti, is a party to' both these decisions. I am of the opinion that it is desirable that the conflict be resolved by an authoritative pronouncement of a Bench of two Judges or more."

2. When the matters were placed before a Division Bench, the Division Bench requested Hon'ble The Chief Justice to place the matters before a Full Bench. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench. That is how the matters-have come up before this Full Bench to resolve the conflict of opinion,

3. While in Ramender Reddy, the Division Bench held that the Inamdar has no right to alienate a land already vested in the State, in S.Veera Reddy, another Division Bench held that such alienation is valid and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to secure ORC. This is the conflict of opinion that requires consideration and resolution.

4. The issue for consideration is whether a purchaser of inam land from Inamdar after 20.07.1955 would acquire right to claim ORC? Incidental issue for consideration would be whether the purchaser of inam land qualifies as a 'successor-in-interest' to Inamdar?

5. We have heard learned Advocate General, learned Senior counsel and learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh. In addition to-oral submissions, written synopsis of submissions are also furnished by learned Advocate General and some senior counsel. Submissions of learned Advocate General, learned Senior Co