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 Counsel and learned counsel for respective parties are as under: Submissions of learned Advocate General: 6.1. According to learned Advocate General, the scheme of the 1955 Act was to abolish the Inams and to vest the land in the State and the same has been vested in the State when the Act was enacted, but since all provisions of the Act did not come into force in July, 1955, though the title vested in the State with the abolition of inams, the possession and other interests remained with the Inamdars and other interested persons even afterwards. Only when the remaining provisions came into force on 01.11.1973, the persons as specified in the Act under Sections 4 to 8 became eligible to apply for ORC. Only when the remaining provisions came into force on 01.11.1973, the persons as specified in the Act under Sections 4 to 8 became eligible to apply for ORC. Therefore, since the Act expressly empowers only specified class of people to apply for ORC, no other person who does not fit in the definitions of Inamdar, kabiz-e-khadim, protected tenant, permanent tenant or non-protected tenant can apply or get ORC on an enquiry conducted as per Section 10. 6.2. He would submit as was held in Seethal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff and others [ (1984) 1 APLJ 302 ], as all the pre-existing rights get extinguished with the abolition of inams and since new rights are yet to be acquired after an enquiry is made under Section 10 of the Act by the authorities constituted there under, only after such adjudication and finality and acquisition of the new rights there under the parties are entitled to those rights recognized under the provisions of the Act. 6.3. It is pertinent to mention that in N.Padmamma and others vs. S.Ramakrishna Reddy and others (2015) 1 SCC 417 , the Apex Court after considering Section 3(1), (2)(b), (g) & (h) of the said Act observed that it is manifest that all inam lands stood vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 20.07.1955. The Court further stated that since the inam land in dispute in that case continued to be in possession of one Mr. Ramachandra Reddy till his demise in the year 1968 where upon the rights and privileges in regard to the same including those that would have entitled him to claim occupancy rights under the Act on account of his being in cultivating occupation of the land on the date of the vesting are inherited by his legal heirs who were the parties to the case before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, thus, has recognized the rights of the heirs of an Inamdar and other specified persons in the Act to apply for an ORC if the conditions laid down by the Act were met by their ancestor to be eligible to apply for an ORC. 6.4. Since the main objective of the Act would be defeated if the Inamdars and others are allowed to alienate the land after the inam lands are vested in the State, the only possible reading of the provisions of the Act is. 6.4. Since the main objective of the Act would be defeated if the Inamdars and others are allowed to alienate the land after the inam lands are vested in the State, the only possible reading of the provisions of the Act is. that unless and until the ORC is obtained, no rights of the Inamdar and the likes are crystallized. Therefore, no such interest, though protected, could have been alienated and no other person other than those specified in the Act can apply for an ORC claiming under a sale deed or the like, Further, Section 11 of the Act only protects the interest of leaseholders and other such transactions (terminable transactions) and not a complete transfer of title. 6.5. Therefore, on a holistic reading of the Act and its objective, it is conspicuous that 'successor-in-interest' can only mean the heirs of those who are eligible under the Act to apply for ORC (Inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim etc.) and not purchasers or such since that would defeat the very purpose of the Act which was to vest the titles over such all in the State. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy: 7.1. According to learned senior counsel Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy in B. Ramender Reddy case, the Division Bench has not considered the scope of saving clauses in Sections 11 and 33[S.33. Saving : Nothing in this Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of 19[the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950] to any inam or the mutual rights and obligations of an Inamdar and his tenants so far as the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act.], However, it has recognized the effect of rights recognized under the Act. He would submit that on the entitlement of purchaser from Inamdar as occupant there is no conflict in the two decisions. He would submit that Inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of third persons and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights and that such transfer is not prohibited. According to learned senior counsel, the findings recorded in S.Veera Reddy are in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laxman Ambaji AIR 1971 SC 1859 , the date of vesting to grant Occupancy Right Certificate is 01.11.1973. 7.2. According to learned senior counsel, the findings recorded in S.Veera Reddy are in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laxman Ambaji AIR 1971 SC 1859 , the date of vesting to grant Occupancy Right Certificate is 01.11.1973. 7.2. According to learned senior counsel, the 1955 Act is a welfare legislation which must be given purposive interpretation. A purchaser of inam land before 01.11.1973 is a successor-in-interest of Inamdar and is entitled to apply for grant of ORC. He would submit that there is no conflict in the two decisions, B. Ramender Reddy and S.Veera Reddy. However, he would submit that in B. Ramender Reddy scope of Sections 11 and 33 were not considered, These are saving clauses and in terms thereof the sale of land by Inamdar is saved and the subsequent purchaser is entitled to apply for ORC. On entitlement of purchaser to apply for ORC what is stated in B. Ramender Reddy is only an observation and is per-incuriam. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana: 8.1. According to learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana, to answer the reference, it may not be necessary to decide as to whether the Division Bench judgment in Ramender Reddy's or the Division Bench judgment in S.Veera Reddy's case has been correctly decided or not. On the other hand, the Full Bench, on interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court would answer the reference about the eligibility of the purchaser from the Inamdar for grant of ORC. 8.2. According to learned senior counsel all inams stood abolished by operation of law with effect from the date of vesting i.e., 20.07.1955. Reading of section 3(2)(h), it is crystal clear that on abolition of inams all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar had ceased. Hence, except the right of re-grant under Section 4 of the Act, the Inamdar had no right, title or interest to sell the inam land to a third party. Such a sale transaction is prohibited by the Act. 8.3. He would further submit that from the reading of various provisions, it is clear that sale by Inamdar is not the intention of the legislature. 8.4. He would submit that in Section 11 sale is not included. Word 'otherwise' cannot be expanded to include sale. Such a sale transaction is prohibited by the Act. 8.3. He would further submit that from the reading of various provisions, it is clear that sale by Inamdar is not the intention of the legislature. 8.4. He would submit that in Section 11 sale is not included. Word 'otherwise' cannot be expanded to include sale. The expression 'or otherwise' has to be construed by referring to the Rule of ejusdem generis and a transaction of sale by the Inamdar cannot be read into Section 11 of the Act. Learned senior counsel relied on Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Ramdev Tobacco Company (1991)2 SCC 119 . Hence, on a comprehensive and purposeful interpretation of the provisions of the Act, Section 11 of the Act cannot take into its fold a sale of inam land by the Inamdar and consequently, the purchaser from an Inamdar has no statutory eligibility or entitlement to get registered as an occupant as per Section 4 of the Act. 8.5. On a close analysis of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, it is crystal clear that on. abolition of inams with effect from 20.07.1955, all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar etc., shall be ceased and be vested absolutely in the State. The date of vesting for abolition of inams is 20.07.1955 and the date of vesting for re-grant/ORC is 01.11.1973. Hence, after abolition of inams with effect from 20.07.1955, the Inamdar had no authority of law to indulge in sale of inam land. In other words, the purchaser will not get any right, title or interest in such land since all inams had already vested with the State. 8.6. The rights saved under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act are those which are contained in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act. As per Section 4 of the Act, an Inamdar can be registered as occupant. A purchaser from the Inamdar after 20.07.1955 is not entitled to register as an occupant under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the three-Judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in N.Padmamma (supra), the family members of the Inamdar would become entitled to get registered as occupants based upon the partition decree/partition deed. A purchaser from the Inamdar after 20.07.1955 is not entitled to register as an occupant under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the three-Judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in N.Padmamma (supra), the family members of the Inamdar would become entitled to get registered as occupants based upon the partition decree/partition deed. In the overall scheme of the Act, the expression 'successor-in-interest' of the Inamdar used in Section 3(d) of the Act has to be given restricted interpretation covering the family-members of the Inamdar only and not the purchaser. If a purchaser is read into Section 3(d) of the Act, the very object of abolition of inams and vesting of the inam lands in the State would be defeated and hence a purposive interpretation has to be given to Section 3(d) of the Act by restricting the scope and ambit of 'successor-in-interest of Inamdar' as covering only the family members of the Inamdar and not a stranger as purchaser. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy: 9.1. According to learned senior counsel, as the Act is silent on who is "successor-in-interest', the scope of the term can be understood by looking to similar statutes. According to learned senior counsel, The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950' makes it clear that only lineal descendants are entitled to succeed to a tenant. This is clear from a reading of Section 40(3) and the proviso appended thereto, 9.2. He would submit that Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act envisages what may be transferred and what cannot be transferred. According to senior counsel, an interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred. Read with Section 43, he would submit that as transfer of land by Inamdar to a buyer is prohibited by law, it is an illegal transaction and Section 43 also cannot come to his rescue. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao: 10.1. Learned senior counsel Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao would contend that on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(c), 3(1) and 3(2) (b), it is clear that the effective date of abolition and vesting in the State is 20.07.1955 and relevant date for recognizing occupancy rights is 01.11.1973. 10.2. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao: 10.1. Learned senior counsel Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao would contend that on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(c), 3(1) and 3(2) (b), it is clear that the effective date of abolition and vesting in the State is 20.07.1955 and relevant date for recognizing occupancy rights is 01.11.1973. 10.2. He would submit that on a reading of Sections 3(2)(b) and 2(d) of the Act, 1975 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975, it is clear that for grant of ORC, not only the Inamdar, but also the successor-in-interest also can make an application provided he satisfies the ingredients under Section 4 of the Act, 1955 i.e., possession and his personal cultivation, on the date of vesting as on 01.11.1973 and there is no dispute of transfer. 10.3. According to learned senior counsel, the observation in paragraph no. 46 of Ramender Reddy case is a stray observation and there is no ratio laid down. Moreover, the observation also makes an exception to the rights recognized under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, 1955. No ratio is laid down with regard to the condition of inalienability of the rights of Inamdar. 10.4. On the reference, he would submit that there is no conflict in the decisions referred to by learned single Judge. In B. Ramender Reddy no ratio is laid down with reference to successor-in-interest of Inamdar. Only in Chama Narasimha Reddy, it is held that Inamdar lost rights and successor-in-interest cannot make an application for grant of ORC. He would submit that the judgment in Lokraj and others v. Kishan Lal and others (1995)3 SCC 291 is not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmamma. He would therefore submit that except in Chama Narasimha Reddy 2007 (3) ALT 265 following the decision in Lokraj, in all other judgments there is no difference of opinion, 10.5. He would submit that Section 11 of the Act, 1955 has no application to the issue. 10.6. He would therefore submit that except in Chama Narasimha Reddy 2007 (3) ALT 265 following the decision in Lokraj, in all other judgments there is no difference of opinion, 10.5. He would submit that Section 11 of the Act, 1955 has no application to the issue. 10.6. He would submit that the judgments in N.Venkateshappa vs Munemma and others (2016)4 SCC 147 and Laxmana Gouda and others v. State of Karnataka have no relevance to the cases on hand, The said decisions are with regard to transfer made between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978, with reference to the Land Enforcement Act and amendments made to 'the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961' and concern to the respective cut off dates/vesting contained therein. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy: 11.1. The term 'successor-in-interest' used in Section 4 includes a purchaser of inam land. He would submit that purchaser after 01.11.1973 and before ORC was granted does not acquire any right in the concerned land. 11.2. Application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and doctrine of relate back is outside the scope of reference and need not be answered by the Full Bench. 11.3. He would submit that 01.11.1973 cannot be the date of vesting. The purpose of abolition is to get the land revenue based on occupation. 11.4. Prior to 20.07.1955 there was non-alienation clause prohibiting Inamdar from alienating the land and, therefore, no right would accrue to the Inamdar to sell the inam land after 20.07.1955. According to learned senior counsel judgments of Karnataka High Court have no application to the facts of these cases. 11.5. According to learned senior counsel, while Section 4 refers to 'successor-in-interest', it does not restrict the scope of application of the said term only to lineal descendents and legislative intent is to give wider meaning. Thus, subsequent purchaser between two vesting dates is a 'successor-in-interest'. Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri P. Sri Raghuram: 12.1. According to learned senior counsel, there was no competence to Inamdar to sell Inam land prior to notification of the Act and same has not accrued after the Act. Main objective of the Act is to remove Inam as an intermediary. The Act converts tenure. There is no transfer of title between State and rhytu. Section 4 does not envisage re-grant. It only envisages registration of Inamdar as occupant. Main objective of the Act is to remove Inam as an intermediary. The Act converts tenure. There is no transfer of title between State and rhytu. Section 4 does not envisage re-grant. It only envisages registration of Inamdar as occupant. Rule 5 envisages only a person who can relate back to Inamdar can make an application. It is clear that only Inamdar can apply for registration/to issue ORC. If any other person makes an application, such person has to make Inamdar as a party. 12.2. According to learned senior counsel, it cannot be presumed that all inams are non-alienable, He would submit that registration for ORC is procedural and not a substantive requirement. 12.3. He would submit that except what is mentioned in Section 3(1) & (2)(b) and Section 4, all other lands do not vest in the State. The inam land cannot be called as Government land. Any person can step into the shoes of an Inamdar. Submissions of learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh: 13.1. According to the learned counsel, as can be seen from Form-I, even a non-Inamdar can also make an application for registration and to secure ORC. 13.2. A purchaser of inam land is a successor-in-interest. By referring to dictionary meaning of the word 'successor' he would submit a purchaser is also a successor to Inamdar. Section 2 (d) and Rule 5 of the Rules refers to entitlement of purchaser of inam land as 'successor-in-interest'. According to learned counsel, purchase made between 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 is different from purchase made after 01.11.1973, In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on decisions of Karnataka High Court. According to learned counsel, in Laxman Ambaji, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not dealt with alienation and successor-in-interest. 13.3. Learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh circulated points for reference. They read as under: . Whether the successor-in-interest of Inamdar includes only his legal heirs or includes the purchasers as defined under Section 2 (d) of A, P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (presently Telangana Abolition of Inams Act 1955) and Rule 5 of A.P. (Telangana Area} Abolition of Inams Rules 1975? 2. Whether a subsequent purchaser acquires right in respect of the Inam property in the following events: a. If a property is purchased from the Inamdar after the enactment of The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955' i.e., 20.07.1955 and before the date of notification i.e., 01.11.1973. 2. Whether a subsequent purchaser acquires right in respect of the Inam property in the following events: a. If a property is purchased from the Inamdar after the enactment of The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955' i.e., 20.07.1955 and before the date of notification i.e., 01.11.1973. b. If the property is purchased from the Inamdar after 01.11.1973 and before the Inamdar obtains an Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC)? 3. Whether the person who applies for the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) should be in actual physical possession as on the date of notification i.e., 01.11.1973 or will it be sufficient if his predecessor-in-title/vendor of the property is in possession of the property? 4. Whether the benefit under Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1872 would enure to the subsequent purchaser and whether such subsequent purchaser is entitled to make an application by himself for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC)? 14. All the learned senior counsel have made extensive submissions referring to these points of reference, recorded above. 15. In reply, learned Advocate General contended that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Shaukat Hussain Khan, if purchaser is included as successor-in-interest, the Act becomes redundant. The Act abolishes all inams and vests the land in the State. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK: 16. In former Hyderabad State during the reign of the Nizam, inams were granted by the Nizam, his Jagirdar, holder of Samstanam etc. After merger of Hyderabad State in Indian Union, the Hyderabad State Legislature enacted the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, now called as The Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955' (for brevity hereafter called as 1955 Act). It is an Act brought out to abolish inams in the then Hyderabad State. The objectives to bring out the Act, as set out, are: ) abolition of all inams other than village service inams and inams held by religious and charitable institutions; ii) full assessment being charged for such abolished inams; iii) the retention by the Inamdar as well as his tenants of lands under their personal cultivation to the extent of the maximum allowed under The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and iv) giving adequate compensation for the lands resumed from them. 17. 17. The Act is divided into five chapters, Chapter-I is preliminary; Chapter-II deals with abolition and vesting of inams and the consequences thereof; Chapter-Ill deals with determination, appointment and payment of compensation; Chapter-IV deals with Appeal, Reference and Revision; and Chapter-V incorporates miscellaneous provisions. It is a self contained Code on the subject. 18. Section 2(1)(c)[S.2. Definitions : [1] In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context – a) & (b) xxx (c) ‘inam’ means land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagidra, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the village records and includes – (i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and (ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records; Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas, the expression inam shall not include such lands as have not been recognised as inams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs;] defines the word 'inam'. To treat a land as inam land, it must have been given as a gift or grant by the Nizam or by a Jagirdar or by a holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor; such gift or grant was continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon; and entered as such in the village records. 'Inam' includes 'arazi maktha', 'arazi agrehar', 'seri inam' and lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records. According to Section 2(1)(d)[S.2. 'Inam' includes 'arazi maktha', 'arazi agrehar', 'seri inam' and lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records. According to Section 2(1)(d)[S.2. Definitions (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context – (a) to (c) xxxx--- (d) ‘Inamdar’ means a person holding an inam or a share therein, either for his own benefit or in trust and includes the successor in interest of an Inamdar, and- (i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot his lawful guardian; (ii) where an inamdar is a joint Hindu family, such joint Hindu family;] the word 'Inamdar' means a person holding land as inam or a share. Such holding can be either for his own benefit or in trust. It also includes a 'successor-in-interest'. A lawful guardian is called Inamdar if Inamdar is a 'minor' or 'of unsound mind' or 'an idiot'. A joint Hindu family can also be an Inamdar. 19. Section 3[S.3. Abolition and vesting of inams and the consequences thereof. (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all inams 9[xxx] shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. (2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting, the following consequences shall ensue, namely ; (a) the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli relating to inams, and the provisions of 10[the Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952] and other enactments, rules, regulations and circulars in force in respect of Atiyat grants shall, to the extent, they are repugnant, to the provisions of this Act, not apply and the provisions of 10th Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, relating to unalienated lands for purposes of land revenue, shall apply to the said inams; (b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant vesting in respect of the inam land, other than the interest expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in all communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether assessed or not), waste lands, pasture lands forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances; (c) all such inam lands shall be liable to payment of land revenue; (d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties, accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or after the date of vesting, shall be payable to the State and not to the Inamdar, and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid; (e) all arrears of revenue, whether as judi, quit-rent or other cess remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of any such inam shall, after such date, continue to be recoverable from the Inamdar by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery be realised by deduction thereof from the compensation amount payable to him under this Act; (f) no such inam shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall subject to the provisions of section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cease to be in the force; (h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between the inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant shall be extinguished; (i) The Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant, and a non-protected tenant of inam lands and any person holding under them and a holder of an inam, shall as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for under this Act and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to any of them in the inam before the date of vesting against the Inamdar shall cease and shall not be enforceable against the Government or the Inamdar. (3) Nothing contained in sub-sections(1) and (2) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the Indamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as Inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law, which, but for this Act, would be available to him.] contemplates abolition and vesting of inams and consequences thereof. It envisages that from the date of vesting all inams should be deemed to have been abolished and would vest in the State. Sub-section 2 (b) envisages that all rights, title and interest vesting in Inamdar etc shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. It further envisages that all rents and land revenue shall be payable to the State only and not to the Inamdar (d); an Inamdar and any other person whose rights have vested in the State under Clause (b) was entitled only to compensation (g); the relationship between Inamdar and Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant stood extinguished (h). 20. 20. Section 4 [S.4 Registration of Inamdars as occupants : (1) Every Inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than – (a) lands set apart for the village commpunity, grazing lands; waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries; tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers; (b) lands in respect of which any person in entitled to be registered under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act; (c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar; which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the family holding; Provided that where inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than those specified in clauses(a) and (c) above without restriction of extent to four and half times the family holding and without the condition of personal cultivation; Provided further that where any person other than the concerned charitable or religious institution has been registered as an occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1985 such registration shall and shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration. (2) No Inamdar shall be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section(1) unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount equal to twenty-five times the difference between the judi or quit-rent if any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. the amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. the amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. (3) The Inamdar shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the time limit specified in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not.] enables an Inamdar for registration as occupant with effect from the date of vesting. However, no such person is entitled to register as occupant unless he pays to the Government as premium an amount equal to twenty five times the difference between the jodi or quit-rent if any paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. 21. Section 5 deals with registration of Kabiz-e-kadim as occupant; Section 6 deals with registration of permanent tenant as occupant; Section 7 deals with registration of protected tenant as occupant and Section 8 deals with registration of non-protected tenant as occupant. All these provisions impose possession and personal cultivation on the date of vesting as condition precedent to secure occupancy rights. 22. The provisions of the 1955 Act came into force in two phases. Section 1, 2 and 3 [except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of Sub-section 2 of Section 3], 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 came into force w.e.f. 20.7.1955. Remaining provisions came into force w.e.f. 1.11.1973. Thus, there are two vesting dates i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973. There are two saving provisions, Section 11 and 33. 23. It is pertinent to note that in view decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Ambaji the date of vesting as 01.11.1973 can no longer be under challenge. Therefore, what is required to be considered is only scope and ambit of various provisions of the Act. 24. Prior to 1955 inams were granted for life only. There was no right of alienation vested in the Inamdar. Those inams were abolished by the 1955 Act. The Act envisaged two vesting dates, i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as first date of vesting and second date of vesting, respectively). From 20.07.1955 the inam lands vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances. There was no right of alienation vested in the Inamdar. Those inams were abolished by the 1955 Act. The Act envisaged two vesting dates, i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as first date of vesting and second date of vesting, respectively). From 20.07.1955 the inam lands vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances. According to Section 3(2)(b) all rights, title and interest hitherto vested in an Inamdar or a tenant including mines, quarries, tents, fisheries etc., ceased and vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, From the first date of vesting, the State became the owner of all inam lands and no one had any right to make any claim except occupation and cultivation. 25. In Mohd. Shaukat Hussain Khan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) 2 SCC 376 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of abolition of Inams. The appellant contended that his predecessor-in-interest was granted Makta on suit inam lands in perpetuity with all sources of income and without any deduction as Government share. Appellant enjoyed all the rights granted to him including the right to selling Sandhi shops, collection of tree tax, etc. under respective Muntakab. Consequent to promulgation of 1955 Act, the Government discontinued payment of Baithak of Sandhi shops and tree tax. It was contended that Akbari rights of the appellant in the suit inam lands were not abolished and that he continues to enjoy said rights. One of the questions considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 abolishes the Abkari rights also. Hon'ble Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. On construing relevant provisions of the 1955 Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "14. A combined reading of the provisions of the Abolition Act with the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act shows that the Legislature had by abolishing inams intended to abolish all rights vested in the inam lands which had been granted to the Inamdar. On construing relevant provisions of the 1955 Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "14. A combined reading of the provisions of the Abolition Act with the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act shows that the Legislature had by abolishing inams intended to abolish all rights vested in the inam lands which had been granted to the Inamdar. The right to tap or derive benefit from trees standing on the lands is a right appurtenant to the lands because a thing attached to the land is itself a part of the land and is immovable property, Haque Malakana which is the right in trees is therefore a right appurtenant to the land so that when any inam land vests in the Government, the right to tap trees standing on the land also vests in the Government. There cannot be any separation of these rights when the tree is still part of the land. There can be no doubt that on publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Abolition Act all inams were abolished and vested in the State. The inams which were so abolished and vested in the State include in it all rights, title and interest in the inams by virtue of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Abolition Act. Such rights as are intended to be saved are those that are saved by the express provisions contained in the Abolition Act. It is, therefore, clear that all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar would include the Abkari rights in the trees. This conclusion of ours is supported by the definition of "land" in Section 2(l-b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act which has to be imported into the definition of "inam land" and which includes any rights in or over such property or benefits accruing from the land or things attached to the land and will also include shares in the charges on the revenue or rent. 15. 15. This Court had in State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh [ AIR 1961 SC 1649 : (1962) 2 SCR 382 : (1963) 1 SCJ 415 ] while dealing with the validity of the Bihar Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1959 considered the question whether the right of a proprietor of an estate to hold a "mela" on his own land was a right in the estate, and held that "the right to hold a "Mela" has always been considered in this country to be an interest in land, an interest which the owner of the land can transfer to another along with the land or without the land. -There can be no doubt therefore that the right of the proprietor of an estate to hold a "Mela" on his own land is a right in the "estate being appurtenant to his ownership of the Sand." Under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Abolition Act vesting of the inams is notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court. In other words, notwithstanding anything in the Muntakhab all the inams to which the Abolition Act is made applicable shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State with effect from the date of vesting. 16. We have noticed already that the inam granted to the appellant under the Muntakhab is with "all sources of income" i.e. "Ba-Harna-Abwab" which rights are not granted independently of the Maktha or inam land but are granted as part of the inam land so that when inam land vests, the rights which the Inamdar had in the land including "Hama Abwab" i.e. Abkari rights also vest in the State. On this conclusion it is clear that the Abkari rights being part of the inam and having vested in the State, the compensation that is payable under Section 12 of the Abolition Act is inclusive of the Abkari rights. As the abolition of inams is a legislation intended to give effect to agrarian reforms by making the land available to persons who have no lands, compensation provided for under Section 12 cannot be challenged. As the abolition of inams is a legislation intended to give effect to agrarian reforms by making the land available to persons who have no lands, compensation provided for under Section 12 cannot be challenged. The scheme of compensation under the Abolition Act is that four and a half times the family holding is to be retained by the Inamdar and in respect of the rest of it a patta is given to the tenants which even with respect to them, along with any lands they own and cultivate personally, be equal to four and a half times the family holding. If after providing for these two items there remains any balance left the Government is required to pay compensation whether to the Inamdar or to the tenants who have excess of land in their possession." (emphasis supplied) 26. In Laxman Ambaji (supra), the issue considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant continued to subsist between 20.07.1955 and 01.07.1960. The State contended that the relationship between Inamdar and tenant ceased w.e.f. 20.07.1955. Per contra, the Inamdar and tenant contended that the relationship between them continued till 01.07.1960, the day on which all provisions of the Act came into force in the State of Maharashtra. The High Court upheld the contention of Inamdar and tenant. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the High Court. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the relevant provisions of the 1955 Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court held, 14. Clause (i) provided that with effect from the date of vesting rights and privileges which might have accrued to any person in Inam before the date of vesting against the Inamdar would cease and would not be enforceable against the Government or the Inamdar. Clause (i) did not come into effect until July 1, 1960, and is another illustration of the saving of mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant. xxxxx 17. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1955 Act deal respectively with registration of Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant as occupants. These occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 could not be granted before July 1, 1960, when these sections came into force. xxxxx 17. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1955 Act deal respectively with registration of Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant as occupants. These occupancy rights under Sections 4 to 8 could not be granted before July 1, 1960, when these sections came into force. Up to July 1, 1960, the mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant were preserved by providing inter alia in Section 33 of the 1955 Act, the application of the Tenancy Act. Again, after the abolition of the Inams by the 1955 Act the right of the landlord to be in possession was preserved. Similarly, the right of the tenant to continue in possession was preserved. Neither the right of the landlord nor the right of the tenant was any right which flowed from any authority or grant of the Government. These rights emanated from the protective provisions of the statute. It is because of the continuance of the mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant that Section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act recognised the Inamdar "as if he were in occupation of the land" for the purpose of land revenue. This liability of the Inamdar to pay land revenue was provided in order to enable the Inamdar to enjoy all his rights including that of revenue in the Inam land." 28. The State decided to confer occupancy rights to five categories mentioned in Sections 4 to 8, but postponed the conferment of such right and date to recognize the beneficiary. Grant of ORC is not free, but based on consideration paid by the occupant and is a sale of State land. From that date State transfers the ownership of the land to one of the five categories of occupants covered by Sections 4 to 8. 29. At this stage, it is pertinent to note text of Section 3(2)(i). This provision came into force on 01.11.1973. It extinguishes rights or privileges those might have accrued to Inamdar from the date of first vesting and cannot be enforced and restricts the rights and privileges as specified in the Act. However, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Ambaji (supra), the relationship between Inamdar and tenant continued till 31.10.1973. It is also pertinent to note provision in clause (f) of Section 3(2). This clause has come into force w.e.f. 20.07.1955. However, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Ambaji (supra), the relationship between Inamdar and tenant continued till 31.10.1973. It is also pertinent to note provision in clause (f) of Section 3(2). This clause has come into force w.e.f. 20.07.1955. This clause prohibits attachment or sale of inam land w.e.f. 20.07.1955 even in execution of a decree or other process of any Court. It also discharges any attachment made before 20.07.1955. A combined reading of clauses (f) and (i), it is crystal clear that an Inamdar can occupy the inam land and cultivate or induct a tenant and only the relationship of Inamdar and tenant is saved till 31.10.1973. On inam land Inamdar cannot transact anything else till he gets ORC. 30. From the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that after abolition of inams, Inamdar is not standing differently from four other, categories to whom ORC can be granted, except the relationship between him and tenant. Further, he is authorized to collect land revenue. Anyone of the five categories, who can establish that on the date of vesting he was in possession and enjoying personal cultivation, is entitled to secure ORC. Thus, till 01.11.1973 occupation of land, hitherto called inam land, was conceded to occupant, whether he is an ex-Inamdar or four categories of tenants and were not disturbed from such occupation. 31. At this stage, it is expedient to look into the two decisions by two Division Benches: I. B. Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others: (1) Two sets of writ petitions were considered by the Division Bench. Ac. 73.15 guntas of land was part of Ac. 191.21 guntas called by the name "Hasan Mohammad Kancha". This kancha was granted as inam under a Muntakab to one Hasan Mohammad, who died long back. There were rival claims to this extent of land. (2) According to legal heirs of late Dr. Pulla Reddy original Inamdar entered into agreement with Dr. Pulla Reddy to sell Ac. 179.04 guntas on 16.7.1961 and Dr. Pulla Reddy paid Rs.10,000/- and was put in possession. Based on these facts legal heirs filed application on 28.9.1985 to grant certificate of occupancy. (2) According to legal heirs of late Dr. Pulla Reddy original Inamdar entered into agreement with Dr. Pulla Reddy to sell Ac. 179.04 guntas on 16.7.1961 and Dr. Pulla Reddy paid Rs.10,000/- and was put in possession. Based on these facts legal heirs filed application on 28.9.1985 to grant certificate of occupancy. They claimed to be in possession and personally cultivating as on 1.11.1973, (3) Another set of persons claiming to be legal heirs of Hasan Mohammed asserted that they are successors-in-title and interest of original Inamdar and claim exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land and are entitled to grant occupancy rights. (4) The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 5.11.1982 holding that Smt. Sarojini Pulla Reddy and her three sons were in actual and physical possession and entitled to secure ORC on Acs. 63.15 guntas extent of land and to Omprakash on Acs. 10.00 extent of land who purchased this land from Smt. Sarojini Pulla Reddy and her sons. (5) Aggrieved by this order, the Inamdars and their successors-in-interest preferred appeal to the District Collector. The District Collector rejected the claim of both parties and declared the land as Government land and therefore no ORC could be issued. (6) Aggrieved by the orders of the District Collector two sets of writ petitions were filed by rival claimants. Both sets of writ petitions were dismissed. Learned single Judge held that the date of vesting is 20.7.1955 and as on the said date petitioners in the first set of writ petitions were not in occupation. With reference to claim of second set of petitioners, learned single Judge held they were never cultivating the land. Challenging the decision of learned single Judge Writ Appeals were filed. (7) The Division Bench in B. Ramender Reddy held as under: "30. The effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court is that though the imams were abolished by the Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and are vested in the State on 20th July, 1955, the Inamdar and the tenant are entitled to occupancy rights provided they are in possession of the property on 1st July, 1960 i.e., the date on which the notification bringing into force those provisions which were not brought into force on 20th July, 1955 was issued. 31. 31. It means the right to get occupancy rights under the Inams Act is not co-related with the right of vesting of inams in the Government under the 1955 Act. Either the Inamdar or the tenant is entitled to get occupancy rights, provided they are in possession of the land as on 1st July, 1960. ............... 38. The decision in State of Maharashtra v, Laxman Ambaji [ AIR 1971 SC 1859 ] is an authority for holding that notwithstanding the abolition of the inams on 20th July, 1955 and vesting the imams in the State, the rights of the Inamdar or tenant are not extinguished provided they are in possession of the land on the relevant date, namely, 1st July, 1960, on which date, the rest of the provisions of the Act were brought into force. 39. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the rest of the provisions were brought into force on 1.11.1973. We have already pointed out that the right to get occupancy right is not co-related to the right of vesting of imams in the Government. In other words, though the lands vested in State on 20th July, 1955, if the Inamdar or various types of tenants were in possession of land as on 1.11.1973, they would be entitled to occupancy rights under the Act. 40. We have already referred to the definition of vesting under Section 2 of the Act. It contemplates two-dates of vesting viz., one for the purposes of Section 3(2)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and Section 3(3) and section 34 and another for the purpose of the remaining provisions of the Act. The date of vesting for the purposes of Section 3(2) (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and Section 3 (3) and Section 34 is the date of publication of the Act in the Official Gazette. The date of vesting for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act is the date appointed by the Government under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. In other words, the date of vesting for the purpose of abolition of the inams and the consequences of abolition and for the purpose of repeal is 20th July, 1955, whereas for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act the date of vesting is the date appointed by the Government, namely, 1st November, 1973. In other words, the date of vesting for the purpose of abolition of the inams and the consequences of abolition and for the purpose of repeal is 20th July, 1955, whereas for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act the date of vesting is the date appointed by the Government, namely, 1st November, 1973. Therefore, the date of vesting for grant of occupancy rights will be the notified date, namely, 1st November, 1973. We are, therefore, of the view that the Act itself contemplates two different dates of vesting and the right to get occupancy rights is not co-related to the right of vesting of imams in the State, Therefore, in any view of the matter either in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Laxman Ambaji (supra) or in view of the definition of 'date of vesting' under Section 2 of the Act, the relevant date for obtaining occupancy rights is 1.11.1973. ........ 43. In K. Keshavlu vs. Government of A.P., [ 1978 (1) APLJ 378 ] Sri Jeevan Reddy, J, held that- "... Had the entire Act been brought into force in 1955, then there is no doubt that the Inamdar would have been recognised (subject to the requirements of Section 4 being satisfied) as an occupant and he would then have been entitled to alienate or transfer the said lands. Merely because there has been a delay in implementing the rest of the provisions of the Act, such right of Inamdar should not be taken away. Further Rule 5 clearly provide for an application being made not only by the Inamdar, but also by his successor-in-interest. The word, successor-in interest' is of wide amplitude. It need not be confined only to heirs. An interest can devolve either by succession or by private treaty or by the operation of law. In all these cases, the persons upon whom the interest devolves would be a successor-in interest. It may be that the position will be different if the alienation is prior to the date of abolition viz., prior to 20-7-56. In such a case, it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But once the inams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon." 44. In such a case, it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But once the inams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of Inamdars, Kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon." 44. In Seethal Singh vs. Mahmood Shariff and others [ 1984 (2) ALT 199 ] Sr. Ramaswamy, J, held that after the abolition of the inams, the inam lands shall stand vested in the Government, all the pre-existing rights shall stand extinguished, new rights are yet to be acquired after an enquiry is made under Section 10 of the Act by the authorities constituted there under and after such an adjudication and finality and acquisition of the new rights there under the parties are entitled only to those rights recognised. 45. The above view expressed by Sr. Ramaswamy, J, is contrary to the view expressed by Sri Jeevan Reddy, referred to supra. However, it is not necessary for us to go into this question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxman Ambaji's case AIR 1971 SC 1859 (supra) and in the light of the view which we are expressing. 46. We have already pointed out that late Dr. Pulla Reddy purchased the property only in 1960. By that date, the inams were already vested in the State. Therefore, the Inamdar, even assuming for a moment that he was in possession of the inam lands, he could not have validly alienated the inam lands in favour of Dr. Pulla Reddy, as on the date of alienation, he himself did not have any right, title or interest except those rights which are recognized under the Act...." II.S. Veera Reddy and another Vs Chetlapalli Chandraiah and others: (1) The land in question was inam land. Plaintiffs as well as defendants applied for grant of occupancy rights certificate under the 1955 Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 22.6.1991 granted ORC in favour of plaintiffs. The said decision of Revenue Divisional Officer was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector by his order dated 9.3.1993. This was challenged in CRP No. 665 of 1994. (2) Facts as noted by this Court, to the extent relevant, read as under: (i) Acs. 9.00 of land in Survey No. 91 of Bowenpally village of Secunderabad was an inam land. This was challenged in CRP No. 665 of 1994. (2) Facts as noted by this Court, to the extent relevant, read as under: (i) Acs. 9.00 of land in Survey No. 91 of Bowenpally village of Secunderabad was an inam land. One Atchi Reddy was declared as a protected tenant of the said land under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. XXI of 1950). Claiming to be transferees of the interest of the said protected tenant under a document said to have been executed by Achi Reddy on February 8, 1963 in favour of the appellants, they asserted to be in possession of the land. Respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to 11, are heirs of one Sattaiah who had set up a rival claim to possession of the said land after the said protected tenant surrendered his tenancy rights, under the Tenancy Act, in favour of the erstwhile Inamdar Gulam Moinuddin on November 18, 1966 and that the said Gulam Moinuddin had entered into an agreement for sale of the said land in his favour on November 20, 1966 and thereafter released the land in his favour on April 28, 1969. (ii) As there was a dispute with regard to the possession on the land, the Executive Magistrate took possession in proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On May 23, 1968 the above said M.C. was disposed holding that the appellants therein were in possession of the land on the relevant date. The matter was carried in revision to the High Court in R.C. No. 310 of 1969. The High Court by its order dated April 24, 1970 allowed the said Revision Case and held that the said Sattaiah was in possession of the land in question. (iii) Questioning the said order of the High Court and claiming declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the said respondents and to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the appellants, O.S. No. 32 of 1970 was filed on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Hyderabad West. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, contending that Gulam Moinuddin and his brother executed an agreement in favour of the 1st defendant conveying the said land and pursuant thereto possession of the land was handed over to them. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, contending that Gulam Moinuddin and his brother executed an agreement in favour of the 1st defendant conveying the said land and pursuant thereto possession of the land was handed over to them. The possession of the land was earlier held by the protected tenant, who made an application to the Tahsildar offering to surrender his right. The surrender was accepted. Thereafter, the defendants came into possession of the land. (iv) It is further stated that the said protected tenant filed O.S. No. 53 of 1966 against the plaintiffs but the suit was dismissed for default. They laid a counter claim that they had got title from Gulam Moinuddin and his brother, erstwhile Inamdars, and that they came into possession of the land in E.P. No. 7 of 1967 on April 25, 1967 in execution of the decree passed in O.S. No. 65 of 1964. They denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land from February 8, 1963 and claimed to be in possession till their possession was disturbed by the revenue authorities pursuant to the preliminary order of the Magistrate in October, 1967. It is stated that the plaintiffs' possession was by virtue of the order of the Magistrate in October, 1967. The 6th defendant, through whom the said defendants claimed title, in his written statement, contended that he was the Inamdar of the said land and that in spite of his objection to the alleged surrender of the rights, the proceedings were completed and the surrender was accepted. After the surrender of the right of the protected tenancy by the said Atchi Reddy, the plaintiffs became occupants consequent to sale of inam land by Inamdar on 20.11.1966. (3) The suit was dismissed on the preliminary issue on jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby CCCA No. 62 of 1980 was filed. Learned single Judge of this Court directed the Additional Chief Judge to record findings on all the issues framed by the trial Court and send the record to High Court. The said order was complied by learned Additional Chief Judge. (4) On considering the findings recorded by the Additional Chief Judge, the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 25.4.1986. Aggrieved thereby LPA No. 61 of 1986 was filed. (5) The CRP and LPA were heard together by the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed LPA. The said order was complied by learned Additional Chief Judge. (4) On considering the findings recorded by the Additional Chief Judge, the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 25.4.1986. Aggrieved thereby LPA No. 61 of 1986 was filed. (5) The CRP and LPA were heard together by the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed LPA. Thereafter, the issue raised in CRP was considered elaborately: The Division Bench held as under: "28. From the above discussion what follows is that, notwithstanding abolition of inams, an Inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of any third person and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights and that such a transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of the Act. 31. This view of the learned single Judge upholding the claim of the purchaser from the Inamdar, was approved by another Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy v. District Collector [1993 (2) An. W.R. 84.]. 32. It may also be pointed out that the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Seelhal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff 1984 (2) ALT 199 (supra) was overruled in B. Ramender Reddy v. District Collector [1993 (2) An. W.R. 84.] and therefore it is no longer a good law. Thus, it follows that the contention that the Inamdar had no right after abolition of inams and that the transfer of any right by the Inamdar in favour of the defendants has no legal sanctity, cannot be accepted. 33. The application of the defendants is one under Section 4 of the Inam Abolition Act. The said section so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, viz., sub-section (1) of Section 4, is as follows:- "4. 33. The application of the defendants is one under Section 4 of the Inam Abolition Act. The said section so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, viz., sub-section (1) of Section 4, is as follows:- "4. Registration of Inamdars as occupants:- (1) Every Inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than- (a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank bed and irrigation works, stream and rivers; (b) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act; (c) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned/by any person other than the Inamdar- which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the family holding'." A perusal of the above provisions, makes it evident that the Inamdar is entitled to be registered as occupant in respect of the categories of the lands enumerated therein, which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the family holding'. The same requirements have to be fulfilled in respect of claims under Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the said Act, In an enquiry contemplated under Section 10 regarding the claims of the Inamdars, Kabize-e-khadim, protected tenant and non-protected tenant for being registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the authority before ordering registration as occupants, will have to be satisfied that (i) the lands in question were under the personal cultivation of the claimant; and (ii) together with any land owned and cultivated by him separately, are equal to four and a half times the family holding. The order of the Joint Collector, impugned in the Civil Revision Petition does not advert to these requirements. The Joint Collector merely confined his consideration as to who was in possession of the land and thus proceeded to confirm the right of occupancy in favour of the possessor without satisfying the requirement of the personal cultivation and the holding of the claimants." 32. The Joint Collector merely confined his consideration as to who was in possession of the land and thus proceeded to confirm the right of occupancy in favour of the possessor without satisfying the requirement of the personal cultivation and the holding of the claimants." 32. In Ramender Reddy, the claim of agreement holder to grant ORG based on purchase of in am land vide agreement dated 16.07.1961 was rejected holding that by that date inam lands were already vested in the Government consequent to abolition; that as on the date of alienation the Inamdar did not have any right, title or interest except those rights which were recognized under the Act; and, therefore, could not have alienated the inam lands. 33. In S.Veera Reddy, the learned Division Bench held that vesting of inam lands in the State after abolition of inams would not apply to the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act. To support this view reliance was placed on Section 11 of the Act. According to the Division Bench, before the date of vesting (i.e., 01.11.1973) if an Inamdar created either by way of lease or otherwise interest in any inam land, the said transaction should be deemed to be valid and all rights and obligations arising there under, on or after the vesting date should be enforceable against the Government. The Division Bench held that notwithstanding abolition of inams, an Inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of any third person and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights and that such a transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of the Act. 34. It is thus clear that the Division Bench in S.Veera Reddy, took diametrically opposite view, though it refers to the decision in Ramender Reddy. 35. In S.Veera Reddy, the Division Bench relied on Section 11 to hold that it is permissible for an Inamdar to sell the inam land and the purchaser becomes the successor-in-interest to secure ORC. To appreciate this view, it is necessary to analyze the text and texture of Section 11. 36. From a reading Section 11[S.11 Saving of rights in certain cases. To appreciate this view, it is necessary to analyze the text and texture of Section 11. 36. From a reading Section 11[S.11 Saving of rights in certain cases. (1) Where before the date of vesting, an Inamdar has created either by way of lease or otherwise, any inam land which vests in the State other than the lands specified in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4, including rights in any forest mines or minerals, quaries, fisheries or ferries, the transaction shall be deemed to be valid and all rights and obligations arising thereunder, on or after the date of vesting, shall be enforceble by or against the Government. Provided that the transaction was not void or illegal under any law in force; Provided further that where such right was created in any lands, other than the lands specified in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Government may, if in their opinion, it is in the public interest to do so, by notice given to the person concerned, terminate the right with effect from such date as my be specified in the notice, not being earlier than three months from the date thereof. (2) The person whose right has been terminated by the Government under the foregoing proviso shall be entitled to compensation from the Government equal to the estimated net income which would have accrued to such person from the land for the unexpired portion of the period for which the right was created, having regard to all the circumstances of the cases.], on a first blush, it appears, as is sought to be urged, that Inamdar can induct any other person even in the form of sale and such transaction is deemed to be valid and rights and obligations arising there under can be enforced against the Government. However, a careful reading and deeper analysis dispels this impression and bare open the true intent of the legislature. Further, Section 11 cannot be seen in isolation, but has to be analyzed in the overall scheme of the Act. Primarily, the Act seeks to dispense with the then prevailing practice to grant inam on land belonging to the State and to transfer the land to person in occupation and cultivation. It is a kind of agrarian reform. 37. Further, Section 11 cannot be seen in isolation, but has to be analyzed in the overall scheme of the Act. Primarily, the Act seeks to dispense with the then prevailing practice to grant inam on land belonging to the State and to transfer the land to person in occupation and cultivation. It is a kind of agrarian reform. 37. The reason for misapplying the provision is on account of delay in giving effect to all the provisions in the Act at one go. This resulted in two vesting dates, i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973. By 20.07.1955 the then inam land absolutely vested in the State free of all encumbrances. However, the Act has not vested power in the State to resume the land. On the contrary, it intended to grant occupancy rights to five categories of persons covered by Sections 4 to 8. However, the recognition of person entitled to claim occupancy rights was deferred till 01.11.1973. Therefore, till ORC was granted the right or privilege vested in the five categories of persons was limited to occupy the land and cultivate and in the case of Inamdar to grant lease, do nothing more. As no other right was vested in them till they secured ORC, question of sale of such land before ORC was granted never arose. 38. Primary requirement to sell a land is that the person must be an owner having full rights to deal with the property as he intends to, i.e., saleable interest. Whereas, the inam land belongs to the State and by virtue of the 1955 Act, it vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances. All five categories of persons covered by Sections 4 to 8, including ex-Inamdar were only entitled to occupy the land and nothing more. An occupant of inam land is not an owner, does not have saleable interest and, therefore, has no right to alienate the land. 39. Having due regard to above analysis, it is necessary to consider the scope of Section 11, In Section 11, the word 'otherwise' is employed after the words 'lease' and 'or' in sub-section (1) of Section 11. In the overall scheme of Section 11, the word 'otherwise' has to be understood in narrow sense and is relatable to word 'lease' preceded by the word 'otherwise'. In other words, the word 'otherwise' is a derivative of the word 'lease'. In the overall scheme of Section 11, the word 'otherwise' has to be understood in narrow sense and is relatable to word 'lease' preceded by the word 'otherwise'. In other words, the word 'otherwise' is a derivative of the word 'lease'. Instead of elaborating on various types of interests that can be created in land, the word 'otherwise' is used. In the context, it must be understood to mean 'differently', 'any other way', 'diversely', 'variously' etc to the word lease'. Expanding the scope of the word to infer that it includes sale also would defeat the very object and scheme of the Act. What is not directly conferred cannot be inferred to mean 'otherwise'. 40. This assessment is also evident from a reading the provisos appended to sub-section (1) of Section 11. According to first proviso, the main provision is qualified by holding that the so-called transaction is not void or illegal in law. As noted above, primary requirement for a person to sell a land is he must have a marketable title to the land. An occupant of a land belonging to State cannot have marketable title. Therefore, a sale by occupant of land is per se illegal. 41. Second proviso vests power in Government to terminate a transaction covered by main provision. Once a sale is made by a person competent to sell, the title passes on to the purchaser and he becomes absolute owner and, therefore, simple termination of ownership does not arise. If State requires land owned by a person it has to acquire the same by taking recourse to Land Acquisition Act. If 1955 Act intends to confer right on an occupant to sell the land, it cannot seek to take away the land from the purchaser by another hand. Therefore, principal provision in sub-section (1) can not be read in isolation ignoring the two provisos. 42. A reading of sub-section (2) makes the scheme very clear. It is apparent from a reading of sub-section (2) that the right that can be created under sub-section (1) was for a specified period, which perforce, is a lease or license to enjoy the land. The State can take away the enjoyment of land under such right even before the tenure was over. There cannot be sale of land for a specified period. The State can take away the enjoyment of land under such right even before the tenure was over. There cannot be sale of land for a specified period. Therefore, obviously, what is referred to in sub-section (1) is nothing but a lease or derivatives of lease. 43. In S.Veera Reddy, with respect, the Division Bench erred in holding that by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 11, the right of Inamdar to alienate inam land is saved. The Division Bench only looked into Sub-section (1) of Section 11. It has not analyzed the scope of the two provisos appended to Sub-section (1) and has not noticed Sub-section (2). Thus, the decision does not lay down the correct law. In addition to analyzing scope of Section 11, it is also pertinent to note that no such right was vested in an Inamdar to sell the inam land prior to the 1955 Act. The Act has not created a new right to alienate which was not available earlier. The Act only vested limited right to occupy and cultivate or to induct a tenant till ORC is granted. What is saved is continuation of lease or license created by Inamdar before the second date of vesting. Even assuming that the date of vesting envisaged by Section 11 is 01.11.1973, this right is qualified by the overarching right of the State to terminate such lease or license at any time before expiry of lease or license period. 44. Paragraphs-31 and 32 in S.Veera Reddy read as under: "31. This view of the learned single Judge upholding the claim of the purchaser from the Inamdar, was approved by another Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy v. District Collector [1993 (2) An.W.R. 84], 32. It may also be pointed out that the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Seethal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff 1984 (2) ALT 199 (supra) was overruled in B. Ramender Reddy v. District Collector [1993 (2) An.W.R. 84] and therefore it is no longer a good law. Thus, it follows that the contention that the Inamdar had no right after abolition of inams and that the transfer of any right by the Inamdar in favour of the defendants has no legal sanctity, cannot be accepted." 45. Thus, it follows that the contention that the Inamdar had no right after abolition of inams and that the transfer of any right by the Inamdar in favour of the defendants has no legal sanctity, cannot be accepted." 45. The Division Bench judgment in B. Ramender Reddy was not correctly read into by the second Division Bench in S.Veera Reddy. Its view that the decision of learned single Judge in Kodithala Keshavulu vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1978 (2) AnWR 3] was approved and Seethal Singh vs. Mahmood Shariff was overruled in B. Ramender Reddy, is not correct. 46. In B. Ramender Reddy, after extracting a paragraph from Kodithala Keshavulu, the Division Bench observed as under: "44. In Seethal Singh vs. Mahmood Shariff and others [ 1984 (2) ALT 199 ] Sr. Ramaswamy, J, held that after the abolition of the inams, the inam lands shall stand vested in the Government, all the preexisting rights shall stand extinguished, new rights are yet to be acquired after an enquiry is made under Section 10 of the Act by the authorities constituted there under and after such an adjudication and finality and acquisition of the new rights there under the parties are entitled only to those rights recognised. 45. The above view expressed by Sr. Ramaswamy, J, is contrary to the view expressed by Sri Jeevan Reddy, referred to supra. However, it is not necessary for us to go into this question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxman Ambaji's case AIR 1971 SC 1859 (supra) and in the light of the view which we are expressing." 47. It is thus seen that in B. Ramender Reddy, the Division Bench only extracted the opinion of learned single Judge on what is meant by 'successor-in-interest' and observed that in Seethal Singh contrary view was taken, but declined to go into the issue as unnecessary in view of Supreme Court decision in Laxman Ambaji and in the light of the view they were expressing. On the contrary, the Division Bench held that the sale made after 20.07.1955 is not valid. This clearly shows that in B. Ramender Reddy the Division Bench was not recognizing the subsequent purchaser as a 'successor-in-interest' to Inamdar. 48. Section 2(1)(d) defines word 'Inamdar'. According to this clause Inamdar includes the 'successor-in-interest'. Next question is who is 'successor-in-interest'. 49. On the contrary, the Division Bench held that the sale made after 20.07.1955 is not valid. This clearly shows that in B. Ramender Reddy the Division Bench was not recognizing the subsequent purchaser as a 'successor-in-interest' to Inamdar. 48. Section 2(1)(d) defines word 'Inamdar'. According to this clause Inamdar includes the 'successor-in-interest'. Next question is who is 'successor-in-interest'. 49. Prior to Act 1955, a land granted as inam could be enjoyed by the Inamdar on his own or a kabiz-e-kadim, protected tenant, non-protected tenant or a permanent tenant during his life time. After the coming into force of the 1955 Act, i.e., 20.07.1955, the inam land vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. The erstwhile Inamdar was relegated to the status of occupant. He could at the most create tenancy by lease or license for a specified period. By such agreement, the lease/license holder enjoyed all the benefits/privileges as available to ex-Inamdar during the period of tenancy. An Inamdar or kabiz-e-kadim, protected tenant, non-protected tenant or a permanent tenant, whoever was in occupation of inam land and cultivating the inam land as on 01.11.1973 was alone entitled to occupancy rights certificate. Thus, an Inamdar can claim ORC only on land in his occupation and in his personal cultivation and if the said land is within the ceiling limits. A right to secure ORC accrued only on 01.11.1973 and issue of ORC arose only after 01.11.1973. Till 01.11.1973 an Inamdar could at best be an occupant. An Inamdar as occupant of the land vested in the State can cultivate the land by himself and by his family members. After the demise of Inamdar his legal heirs, being successors-in-interest, can succeed to the occupancy enjoyed by Inamdar, can continue to occupy and enjoy the fruits of use of the land till they secure ORC. 50. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, more particularly Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the term 'successor-in-interest' has limited application. In the overall scheme of the Act, there is no scope to make an outsider as 'successor-in-interest to succeed to Inamdar merely based on purchase of inam land. It applies only to a legal heir of the Inamdar. 51. In Kodithala Keshavulu (supra), learned single Judge, Hon'ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, as he then was, dealing with scope of the "term 'successor-in-interest' held as under: "4. It applies only to a legal heir of the Inamdar. 51. In Kodithala Keshavulu (supra), learned single Judge, Hon'ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, as he then was, dealing with scope of the "term 'successor-in-interest' held as under: "4. As stated above, the Act was not brought into force at once and that has led to several unfortunate consequences and complications. Only the provision abolishing the Act and certain other provisions were brought into force with effect from 20.07.1956, while keeping the remaining provisions of the Act in embryo. The rest of the Act came into force only from 01.11.1973. During the interregnum the rights of the landlords and tenants were retained intact and since the remaining provisions and particularly the provisions contained in Sections 5 and 6 were not enforced, no proceedings could be taken for registering the Inamdars or other persons mentioned in those sections as occupants. But this delay should not prejudice the rights of the concerned parties. Had the entire Act been brought into force in 1955, then there is no doubt that the Inamdar would have been recognized (subject to the requirements of Section 4 being satisfied) as an occupant and he would then have been entitled to alienate or transfer the said lands. Merely because there has been a delay in implementing the rest of the provisions of the Act, such right of Inamdar should not be taken away. Further, Rule 5 clearly provides for an application being made not only by the Inamdar, but also by his successor-in-interest. The word, successor-in-interest is of wide amplitude. It need not be confined only to heirs. An interest can devolve either by succession or by private treaty or by the operation of law. In all these cases, the persons upon whom the interest devolves would be a successor-in-interest. It may be that the position will be different if the alienation is prior to the date of abolition, viz., prior to 20.07.1956. In such a case it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But once the inams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of Inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon," 52. In such a case it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But once the inams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of Inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon," 52. With respect, the said opinion is contrary to the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopi Kanta Sen vs. Abdul Gaffur 1968(1) SCR 170 . In somewhat similar factual background, Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that a successor-in-interest means a person who inherited but not who acquired by purchase. Paragraph-12 of the judgment reads as under; "12. Finally came the Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act (VI of 1953). It made important changes in the Act itself. It came into force on March 14, 1953 on which date the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952 ceased to operate. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 provided that the Act was to come into force immediately on the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952 ceasing to operate: provided that the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 as amended by this Act were subject to the provisions of Section 9 to apply and be deemed to have always applied to all suits, appeals and proceedings-(a) before any court, or (b) before the Controller, or (c) before a person deciding an appeal under Section 27 of the said Act, on the date of the commencement of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952 i.e., 21st October, 1952. Section 2 of the Act amended the definition of 'thika tenant' still further by giving the benefit of the Act to persons who had erected or acquired by purchase or gift any structure on the land for a residential, manufacturing or business purpose and was to include the successors in interest of such person. The word 'successor-in-interest' had not been defined in the Act or in the Ordinance but as words in the Act were under s. 2 sub-s. (6) to have the same meaning as those used in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 it would, but for the amendment of the definition of a thika tenant, have meant only those persons who inherited from tenants and not those who acquired by purchase. Sections 3, 4, and 5 introduced changes with which we are not concerned, Section 8 laid down that Sections 28 and 29 of the Act of 1949 shah be omitted. Under Section 9 any proceedings commenced under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance were to be continued as if such sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of that section and the Explanation to that section were in force."(emphasis supplied) 53. In view of enunciation of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Gaffur, it is beyond pale of doubt that a 'successor-in-interest' is a person who is a legal heir and inherits to the property left behind by his ancestor and not those who have acquired by purchase unless it is specifically defined under the Act including purchaser also. Having regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act, a purchaser of land does not become a 'successor-in-interest' to the owner of the land. He would acquire title to the land by purchase only if the vendor has a saleable interest. Until an Inamdar secures ORC he cannot become an owner of the land and therefore he cannot pass on the title to the purchaser. 54. In the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, the State Legislature brought out separate Inams Abolition Act called The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956" applicable to Andhra area. The salient feature of this Act is land never vested in the State and on abolition of inams the State envisaged granting Ryotwari Patta to Inamdar. The Act was amended by Act 20 of 1975. By this amendment, Section 10B[S.10B. Conferment of ryotwari pattas on transferees of unenfranchised inams; Where, before commencement of the Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975 an Inamdar, other than an institution, of any unenfranchised inam has sold or otherwise transferred his interest in the inam land held by him, the transferee, who has acquired the said interest in good faith and for valuable consideration, or his succession in title, who is in possession of such land on the date of such commencement, shall be, deemed to be the inamdar for the purpose of this Act.] is added. 55. Section 10B recognizes the alienation made by Inamdar before commencement of 1975 Amendment Act and holds the transferee as deemed to be Inamdar. 56. 55. Section 10B recognizes the alienation made by Inamdar before commencement of 1975 Amendment Act and holds the transferee as deemed to be Inamdar. 56. The legislative intent is very clear. While in The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956' applicable to Andhra area, the legislature leans in favour of recognizing alienee as also an Inamdar in Andhra Area of then combined State, the same legislature has chosen not to envisage sale of inam land by Inamdar before ORC is granted and does not recognize alienee to succeed to Inamdar in Telangana area governed by the 1955 Act. If the State legislature had intended to extend the same benefit in Telangana area, it could have made similar provision in the 1955 Act. 57. It is thus safe to assume that in the scheme of the Act, a 'successor-in-interest' means only a legal heir and not a purchaser of inam land and such purchaser is not entitled to apply for ORC. The decision of learned single Judge in Kodithala Keshavulu is thus overruled. 58. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under: (1) The law laid down in S.Veera Reddy (supra) is not correct having regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act. We agree with the law laid down in B. Ramender Reddy as correct and overrule the decision in S.Veera Reddy. (2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor-in-interest and can not apply for ORC. (3) Only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land can apply to get ORC.. (4) The decision in Kodithala Keshavulu (supra) does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. For that matter, all the decisions of learned single Judges and the Division Benches which have taken contrary view stands overruled, (5) We make it clear that an Inamdar, Kabiz-e-Kadam permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant can acquire saleable interest only after they obtain ORC and cannot create third party rights and/or interest in any other person before obtaining ORC. 59. 59. As the issue for consideration is to resolve the conflict of opinion in the two decisions of two Division Benches in B. Ramender Reddy and S.Veera Reddy on the entitlement of a purchaser from an Inamdar to apply for ORC under the 1955 Act after 20.07.1955 and before ORC v/as granted to Inamdar, the other issues raised in the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals including scope and application of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act do not fall for consideration and, therefore, no opinion is expressed. All other issues urged in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are left open to be urged in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions as the case may be. 60. The reference is answered accordingly. The registry is directed to place the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions before appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice.