Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10426
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.M. Mohiuddin, J
D. Yadaiah – Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.33696 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri P. Krishna Reddy
For the Respondents: Ms. T. Swetcha, Sri Shankar Polasa, Sri Prasad Thipparapu, Sri V.V. Ramana, Sri K. Pratik Reddy
Authorities under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, possess the jurisdiction to decide issues of succession and heirship as these are incidental to determining occupancy rights; delegating such matters to civil courts constitutes an abdication of statutory duty.
Headnote:(A) A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 4 and 24 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) - Jurisdiction to decide succession - Grant of ORCs by RDO set aside by Joint Collector on grounds that disputes of succession are civil in nature - Such reasoning is unsustainable as the Act is a self-contained code and the power to determine occupancy rights under Section 4 necessarily includes the incidental power to decide heirship and inter se entitlement among successors (Paras 20, 23 and 25) - Relegating parties to a civil court instead of adjudicating the appeal on merits constitutes an abdication of statutory duty (Paras 26 and 27).
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Order passed without notice to the affected parties who were beneficiaries of the ORCs is wholly vitiated (Paras 30, 31 and 32) - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite delay where the order is vitiated by jurisdictional error and violation of natural justice, especially when no irreversible third-party rights have intervened (Para 33).
Facts of the case:
The RDO granted Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) to the heirs of three branches (Bhoomaiah, Kistaiah, and Sayanna) after determining that each branch was entitled to a 1/3rd share of the Inam lands. This was challenged before the Joint Collector, who set aside the ORCs, ruling that disputes regarding succession and shares are essentially civil in nature and beyond the scope of the Inams Act. The petitioners, who were beneficiaries of the RDO's order, were not served notice during the appellate proceedings and only became aware of the order years later during a separate civil suit.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Joint Collector committed a jurisdictional error by relegating the parties to a civil court. Determining legal heirs is an integral and incidental part of the grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Act. The appellate authority abdicated its statutory duty by refusing to decide the appeal on merits. Furthermore, the failure to provide notice to the petitioners resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Joint Collector was justified in setting aside the ORCs and relegating parties to a civil court on the ground that succession disputes are civil in nature, and whether the appellate order was vitiated due to the lack of notice to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, is a self-contained code providing a complete adjudicatory mechanism; therefore, authorities under the Act are empowered to decide issues of succession incidental to the grant of ORCs. Directing parties to civil court for such determinations defeats the purpose of the Act's hierarchical machinery. Additionally, any quasi-judicial order that affects civil rights must adhere to the rules of natural justice, specifically the requirement of notice (audi alteram partem).
Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.
ORDER
Heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri Shankar Polasa, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri Prasad Thipparapu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7, 21 to 29; Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 to 20 and Sri K.Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11, 13 and 30 to 39.
2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Proceedings bearing No.F1/1685/2004, dated 31.12.2005 on the file of respondent No.1-Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘Joint Collector’) and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the 1st respondent (Joint Collector), whereby the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) granted by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division (hereinafter referred to as “RDO”), vide Proceedings No.L/4920/98 dated 26.12.2003, was set aside on the ground that the matter involves serious disputes relating to succession and shares, which are essentially civil in nature and that the authorities under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Inams Act”) lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.
Factual matrix (in brief)
4. The subject matter of the lis concerns agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.6-17 Gts situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are comprised as follows:
| Survey Number | Extent |
|---|---|
| 34 | 0-33 Gts |
| 35 | 0-20 Gts |
| 55/A | 0-16 Gts |
| 77 | 0-38 Gts |
| 88/A | 3-30 Gts |
The said lands are admitted Inam lands, originally held by the forefathers of the contesting parties, namely, late Neeradi Bhumaiah, Sayanna and Kistaiah, who were Inamdars.
5. Upon abolition of Inams, several rival claimants, asserting themselves to be the legal heirs and successors of the original Inamdars, submitted applications before the 2nd respondent (RDO), under Section 4 of the Inams Act, seeking grant of ORCs. The applicants included respondent Nos.4 to 13 and others i.e., Smt. B.Gangamma, Sri D.Ramaiah, Sri D.Satyanarayana and Sri N. Laxmaiah.
6. The RDO ordered an enquiry through the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Serilingampally, who submitted a report dated 28.11.1998 along with extracts of revenue records, including the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and Pahanies for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1992-93.
7. After issuing notices to all the rival claimants and affording them an opportunity of hearing, the RDO, by proceedings dated 26.12.2003 in No.L/4920/98, passed a detailed order. Relying inter alia upon the crucial year Pahani (1973-74), wherein the names of Bakkaiah, S/o Bhumaiah, Rukkiah, S/o Papaiah and Rajaiah Begari, S/o Rajaiah were reflected as possessors, the Officer examined the genealogical lineage of the three branches descending from Devarakonda Bhoomaiah, Devarakonda Kistaiah and Devarakonda Sayanna.
8. The RDO concluded that the three branches were entitled to equal shares in the Inam lands and determined that each branch was entitled to 1/3rd share. The Division of total extent of Ac.5-31 Gts into three equal shares of Ac.1-37 Gts each is extracted hereunder:
| Sy. No. | Total Extent | Devarakonda Bhoomaiah (1/3 Share) | Devarakonda Kistaiah (1/3 Share) | Devarakonda Sayanna (1/3 Share) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | 0-33 | 0-11 | 0-11 | 0-11 |
| 35 | 0-20 | 0-07 | 0-06 | 0-07 |
| 55/A | 0-16 | 0-05 | 0-06 | 0-05 |
| 77 | 0-12 | 0-04 | 0-04 | 0-04 |
| 88/A | 3-30 | 1-10 | 1-10 | 1-10 |
| Total | 5-31 | 1-37 | 1-37 | 1-37 |
9. On such determination, the extent was apportioned and ORCs were granted in favour of the respective members of each branch, including:
i) The heirs of late Devarakonda Bhoomaiah @ Neeradi Bhoomaiah, wherein RDO note that Bhoomaiah had two sons i.e., Bakkaiah and Gandaiah both of whom died. The RDO further no
