Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1242
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Sri Madugula Bixapathi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondent
WP/2923/2023
Possession as of 01.11.1973 is crucial for granting Occupancy Rights Certificates under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and actions violating status quo orders are illegal.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Writ petitions concerning issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) - Petitioners claim ownership as successors of original inamdar, while respondents assert rights as protected tenants - Court examines the validity of orders by Joint Collector and RDO - Court finds that the respondents were in possession of the lands as of the crucial date, 01.11.1973, and thus entitled to ORCs. (Paras 7, 20, 29)
(B) Status Quo Orders - Court emphasizes that actions taken in violation of status quo orders are illegal and without legal effect - Supreme Court precedent cited regarding the nullification of actions contrary to such orders. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge orders denying ORCs and claim ownership based on succession from the original inamdar, while respondents assert their rights as protected tenants. The case involves multiple writ petitions concerning land disputes in Ranga Reddy District.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the orders of the Joint Collector granting ORCs to the respondents, confirming their possession as of the critical date.
Issues: The main issues include the validity of the orders granting ORCs and the legality of actions taken in violation of status quo orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents were entitled to ORCs based on their possession as of 01.11.1973, and actions taken contrary to status quo orders are deemed illegal.
Result: W.P.Nos.8652 of 2009 and 3098 of 2024 are dismissed; W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023 are allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim ownership (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents claim as protected tenants (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. parties involved in the case (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. claim of petitioners based on succession (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court examines claims and records (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's ruling on possession (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. court's decision on writ petitions (Para 30) |
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.8652 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners i.e, Smt. Zainab Bee and others, seeking to declare the impugned order dated 28.02.2009 passed in Case Nos.F1/100/2008 and F1/3811/2008 by the respondent No.1-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also the order dated 02.03.2007 passed in File No.J/1865/2006 by the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), as illegal, arbitrary and consequently prayed this Court to set aside the same and direct the respondent No.2 to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) to the petitioners. Smt.Zainab Bee and others also filed Writ Petition No.3098 of 2024 seeking similar relief.
3. W.P.No.27953 of 2022 is filed by petitioners i.e, Sri Madugula Bikshapathi and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No 3 in entertaining applications for sanction of building permissions in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy No 251 including granting sanction in respect of Plot No.131 admeasuring 220 Sq.yards vide proceedings No.168/BP/2022 dated 01.04.2022 is in violation of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.11338 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.8652/2009 dated 27.04.2009 wherein both the parties are directed to maintain status quo until further orders and also the orders dated 28.02.2009 of the Joint Collector passed in file No.F1/3811 of 2008 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates to the Petitioners as illegal and arbitrary, Consequently to restrain the Respondent No.3 from granting any further permissions for construction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy.No.251 of Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also to suspend the permission dated 01.04.2022 vide proceeding No.168/BP/2022”
4. W.P.No.2923 of 2023 is filed by Sri Madugula Bikshapathi and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the mutation of the names of respondent No.4 i.e, Smt. Zainab Bee in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/1 and Ac.1.19 gts in Sy.No.253, the name of Respondent No.5 i.e, Md. Haneef in respect of Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/2 and Ac.1.18 gts in Sy.No.253/2, the name of respondent No.6 i.e, Moinuddin in respect of Ac.0.34 gts in Sy.no.253/3 and Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/3 and the name of respondent No.7 i.e, Imamuddin in respect of land Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.252/4 and Ac.1.19 gts in Sy.No.253/4 situated at Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to entertain registration of any deeds executed by respondent nos.4 to 7 in respect of above said lands…”
5. The petitioners in W.P. No. 8652 of 2009 and W.P. No. 3098 of 2024 are the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.27953 of 2022 and W.P. No. 2923 of 2023, and vice versa. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.8652 of 2009.
6. Writ Petition No.8652 of 2009 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.
7. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in-interest Mohd. Ismail Saheb, was the inamdar for the lands admeasuring Ac.14-30 gts in Sy.No.251, Ac.1-35 g
