THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1676 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Praveen Bonkuri, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Appeal No.F2/11366/2018 by the learned Additional Collector (Revenue), Mahabubnagar, (for short, ‘the Appellate Authority’), wherein, the appeal filed under Section 24(1) of the TS Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 31.03.2018 in File No.K/7082/2011 passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar (for short, ‘the Primary Authority’) in respect of Survey No.26 (Ac.8-13 gts.) of Yaronipally Village, Hanwada Mandal.

3. The revision petitioners and respondents are the appellants and respondents before the Appellate Authority, respectively. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.F2/11366/2018.

4. The brief facts of the case are that Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in file No.K/6791/98 dated 04.11.1998 was granted in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13 by the Primary Authority. The matter went up to the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and was remanded back vide orders dated 24.12.2010 in file No.F2/22/2009 setting aside the ORC granted vide File No.K/6791/98 dated 04.11.1998 with respect to land in Survey No.26 (Ac.8-13 gts.) of Yaronipally Village, Hanwada Mandal. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority in case No.F2/22/2009 cancelled the said ORC and remanded back the matter to the Primary Authority for fresh enquiry. As per the Khasra Pahani 1954-55, the subject land is classified as ‘Balwatha Inam’ and Chakali Yellaiah was recorded as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa and others have been recorded as actual cultivators. Further, Pahani for the year 1973-74 shows Chakali Yellaiah S/o. Saigadu as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa as cultivator. As per Pahani for the year 1984-85 Kuppagiri Chennaiah was recorded as cultivator. The Primary Authority during the course of enquiry issued notices to the respondent Nos.1 to 13. Written arguments were filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Inspite of giving opportunity, respondent Nos.10 to 13 did not file written arguments. On the basis of entries in revenue records, since there was no defence from respondent Nos.10 to 13, the Primary Authority issued fresh ORC in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9 as per Section 3 of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, by recording Kuppagiri Kistaiah and his L.Rs. as occupants of the subject land on payment of Rs.203/- under Section 4(2) of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, appeal No.F2/11366/2018 has been preferred before the learned Additional collector (Revenue), Mahabubnagar, by the appellants/third party purchasers.

5. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are claiming right over the subject land under registered documents executed by respondent Nos.10 to 13 and appellant Nos.3 to 6 are claiming to be 2nd purchasers of the subject land from appellant Nos.1 and 2. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the Appellate Authority held that the subject land is classified as Balwatha Inam in the name of Chakali Yellaiah as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa and others as occupants. As per Section 3(1) of TS Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, all Inams are abolished and vesting of the same reckoned on 20.07.1955. However, occupancy rights were determined as per the possession of the occupants on 01.11.1973. On the said date, Kuppagiri Basappa and others were in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is held that the appellants could not establish their possession over the subject land as on 01.11.1973 and therefore, confirmed the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Primary Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

6. In the