Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 30898
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Mir Sadath Ali – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Hyderabad – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos.324 and 325 of 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, Mr. M.Srinivas
For the Respondents: Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, Mr. N.Praveen Reddy
The court upheld the grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act based on substantial evidence, affirming proper administrative procedure.
Headnote:(A) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 - Section 8 and 24 - Tenancy Act, 1950 - Sections 34 and 40 - Occupancy Rights Certificate granted to respondent, upheld by higher authorities despite contestation regarding jurisdiction and entitlements - Courts affirm that authority acted within legal boundaries after proper consideration and evidentiary analysis. (Paras 12, 20)
(B) Tenancy Rights - Consideration of evidence from revenue records and testimonies affirmed by authorities - Substantial compliance with statutory requisites validates respondent's claim against appellants' contestations. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
Appeals challenge the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondent based on claims rooted in long-standing possession and evidentiary verification from local revenue officers.
Findings of Court:
Grants upheld based on confirmed occupancy and statutory provisions governing Inams.
Issues: Were proper procedures followed in granting ORC, and did the authorities err in jurisdiction by dismissing opposing claims?
Ratio Decidendi: Sufficient evidence warranted the occupancy rights award to the respondent under the Inams Abolition Act, with lower court's findings reflecting careful deliberation.
Result: Writ Appeals are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the validity of orc claims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. questioning jurisdiction and adherence to legal standards. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. affirmation of findings on occupancy and tenancy matters. (Para 6 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. upholding administrative authority in orc issues. (Para 12 , 20) |
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.324 of 2009 and respondent No.4 in W.A.No.325 of 2009.
Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 in W.A.No.324 of 2009.
Mr. N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.325 of 2009.
2. Writ Appeal Nos.324 and 325 of 2009 are filed challenging the common order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 respectively.
3. Brief facts:
In Writ Petition No.18038 of 2001, writ petitioner assailed the validity of order, dated 06.08.1994, passed by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (respondent No.2) and confirmed by Joint Collector (respondent No.1) vide order, dated 31.03.2001, whereby Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short “ORC”) were granted to respondent No.3 in respect of Ac.3.23 guntas of land in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3.1. In Writ Petition No.2722 of 2005, the writ petitioner is respondent No.1 before RDO and the appellant in the appeal filed before Joint Collector, the writ petition is filed questioning orders dated 06.08.1994 and 31.03.2001 passed by RDO and Joint Collector.
3.2. For purpose of reference, W.A.No.324 of 2009 (W.P.No.18038 of 2001) is being considered.
3.3. Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition on 13.09.1998 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Inams Act, 1955”) in respect of Ac.6.09 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.468 and Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471. The claim petition was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Rajendranagar, by RDO for a report after conducting preliminary enquiry. After obtaining report from the MRO, RDO held enquiry. Having considered the respective pleadings of respondent No.3, the appellant (writ petitioner) and respondent No.4 and on the basis of the material on record before him, including the statements of the parties recorded in the enquiry, RDO partly allowed the claim petition of respondent No.3 and declared that she is entitled for grant of ORC under Section 8 of the Inams Act, 1955 for an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in Survey Nos.469, 470 and 471 of the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant and respondent No.4 filed separate appeals under Section 24 of the Inams Act, 1955, which were dismissed by Joint Collector by a common order dated 31.03.2001. The appellant and respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition Nos.18038 of 2001 and 2722 of 2005 challenging the said orders.
3.4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by a common order, dated 14.11.2008, holding that the RDO, after in-depth consideration of the respective claims of all the three parties, viz., respondent No.3, the appellant and respondent No.4, held that respondent No.3 is entitled to be registered as occupant. The learned Single Judge further held that neither the appellant nor respondent No.4 could make out any case warranting Court’s interference with the order passed by RDO as confirmed by Joint Collector. It is this common order, which is under challenge in the present writ appeals.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an application without impleading the inamdar is not maintainable and the entire proceedings of RDO are without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the appellants have admitted that father of respondent No.4 was a tenant in the subject lands. It is also submitted t
