Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1342 (TS)

Y. Krishnaiah v. Kuppagiri Chennaiah died per LRs

2025-10-29

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. Heard Sri. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Praveen Bonkuri, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Appeal No.F2/11366/2018 by the learned Additional Collector (Revenue), Mahabubnagar, (for short, ‘the Appellate Authority’), wherein, the appeal filed under Section 24(1) of the TS Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 , was dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 31.03.2018 in File No.K/7082/2011 passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar (for short, ‘the Primary Authority’) in respect of Survey No.26 (Ac.8-13 gts.) of Yaronipally Village, Hanwada Mandal. 3. The revision petitioners and respondents are the appellants and respondents before the Appellate Authority, respectively. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.F2/11366/2018. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in file No.K/6791/98 dated 04.11.1998 was granted in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13 by the Primary Authority. The matter went up to the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and was remanded back vide orders dated 24.12.2010 in file No.F2/22/2009 setting aside the ORC granted vide File No.K/6791/98 dated 04.11.1998 with respect to land in Survey No.26 (Ac.8-13 gts.) of Yaronipally Village, Hanwada Mandal. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority in case No.F2/22/2009 cancelled the said ORC and remanded back the matter to the Primary Authority for fresh enquiry. As per the Khasra Pahani 1954-55, the subject land is classified as ‘Balwatha Inam’ and Chakali Yellaiah was recorded as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa and others have been recorded as actual cultivators. Further, Pahani for the year 1973-74 shows Chakali Yellaiah S/o. Saigadu as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa as cultivator. As per Pahani for the year 1984-85 Kuppagiri Chennaiah was recorded as cultivator. The Primary Authority during the course of enquiry issued notices to the respondent Nos.1 to 13. Written arguments were filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Inspite of giving opportunity, respondent Nos.10 to 13 did not file written arguments. On the basis of entries in revenue records, since there was no defence from respondent Nos.10 to 13, the Primary Authority issued fresh ORC in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9 as per Section 3 of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, by recording Kuppagiri Kistaiah and his L.Rs. On the basis of entries in revenue records, since there was no defence from respondent Nos.10 to 13, the Primary Authority issued fresh ORC in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9 as per Section 3 of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, by recording Kuppagiri Kistaiah and his L.Rs. as occupants of the subject land on payment of Rs.203/- under Section 4(2) of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, appeal No.F2/11366/2018 has been preferred before the learned Additional collector (Revenue), Mahabubnagar, by the appellants/third party purchasers. 5. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are claiming right over the subject land under registered documents executed by respondent Nos.10 to 13 and appellant Nos.3 to 6 are claiming to be 2nd purchasers of the subject land from appellant Nos.1 and 2. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the Appellate Authority held that the subject land is classified as Balwatha Inam in the name of Chakali Yellaiah as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa and others as occupants. As per Section 3 (1) of TS Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 , all Inams are abolished and vesting of the same reckoned on 20.07.1955. However, occupancy rights were determined as per the possession of the occupants on 01.11.1973. On the said date, Kuppagiri Basappa and others were in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is held that the appellants could not establish their possession over the subject land as on 01.11.1973 and therefore, confirmed the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Primary Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 6. In the grounds of the revision, it is pleaded that the Inam Tribunal granted ORC on 04.11.1998 in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2 with respect to subject land and the same has become final and was also implemented in records. However, respondent Nos.6 and 7, father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and father of respondent Nos.8 and 9 have filed the Inam appeal in File No.F2/22/2009 after expiry of 11 years and the Appellate Authority had erroneously entertained the appeal without any notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and remanded the matter to the Primary Authority for fresh enquiry. It is contended that the Inam appeal is barred by limitation and therefore, ought not to have been entertained. It is contended that the Inam appeal is barred by limitation and therefore, ought not to have been entertained. Both the Primary Authority and the Appellate Authority have observed that ORC is to be granted in favour of the persons who are in possession of the subject land on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973 and that being the case, appellant Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the subject land on the date of vesting and therefore, the Inam Tribunal granted ORC dated 04.11.1998 in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, the name of appellant Nos.1 and 2 were entered in the ROR records as pattedars and they have sold the subject land to appellant Nos.3 to 6. Respondent Nos.10 to 13 are claiming to be the legal heirs of the original Inamdar but were not in possession of the subject on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973 and therefore, the order passed by the Primary Authority granting ORC in their favour is erroneous. 7. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, the appellants challenged the impugned order with a prayer to set aside both the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Primary Authority and to confirm the ORC granted by Inam Tribunal dated 04.11.1998. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants argued that the Appellate Authority made an error by entertaining the Inam appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7, father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and father of respondent Nos.8 and 9 vide File No.F2/22/2009 challenging the ORC granted on 04.11.1998 after lapse of 11 years. It is also argued that instead of dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority remanded back the matter to the Primary Authority for conducting fresh enquiry. Further, the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Primary Authority in File No.K/7082/2011 is also erroneous as the possession of the appellants as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973 has not been taken into consideration and that ORC ought not to have been issued in the name of respondent Nos.1 to 9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in case of Syed Hussain Sab (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar District and Others, 2009 (3) ALT 316 (S.B.) ,wherein there is a description of Inamdar, the said relevant paragraph is extracted and produced below: 13. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in case of Syed Hussain Sab (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar District and Others, 2009 (3) ALT 316 (S.B.) ,wherein there is a description of Inamdar, the said relevant paragraph is extracted and produced below: 13. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in Chama Narasimha Reddy and another v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others , wherein it is held thus: 'Inams Abolition Act applies to Telangana area of State of Andhra Pradesh. It is made applicable to all imams as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. The Act seeks to abolish all land. Inamdars (As defined in Section 2(1)(d), "inamdar' means a person holding an inam or imams besides providing for registration of certain categories of holders as occupants of the a share 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 inamdainamdarint Hindu family, such Joint Hindu family), (Section 4), Kabize-e-khadim (As defined in Section 2(1)(e), "kabize-e-khadim' means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue), (Section 5), Permanent tenants (As defined in Section 2(1)(h), "permanent tenant' means a person who, from a date prior to 10 th June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement), (Section 6), Protected tenants (As defined in Section 2(1)(?) "protected tenant' means the protected tenant as defined in the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural, Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950), (Section 7) and Non-protected tenants (As defined in Section 2(1)(g), "non-protected tenant' means a tenant other than a permanent tenant or a "protected tenant'), (Section 8) are five categories of persons, who can be registered as occupants as per Section 10 of Inams Abolition Act. So as to claim ORC, these persons have to prove that as on the date of vesting, such persons are in occupation of the inam land.'?” (verbatim reproduced) As per the above legal ratio, the persons claiming ORC have to prove that as on the date of vesting, such persons are in occupation of Inam land. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that no error was committed by the Appellate Authority and Primary Authority while passing the impugned orders. It is argued that the enquiry was conducted by giving notice to all the interested persons but the appellants neither appeared before the Primary Authority nor produced any documents. There was an enquiry about the possession of the respondents on 01.11.1973 and ORC has been issued accordingly. 10. When the fact situation is perused, it is seen that the appellants have grievance on three counts. The first is that the Inam Appeal vide File No.F2/22/2009 against the grant of ORC on 04.11.1998 is filed after lapse of 11 years. The second grievance is that notice was not given to them before issuing the ORC in favour of the respondents. The last grievance is that the appellants are claiming to be in possession of the subject land as on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973, whereas, ORC is granted in favour of the respondents who are not in possession. 11. With respect to the first grievance i.e., the ORC is issued in the year 1998 in favour of the Inamdar and appeal is preferred in the year 2009 challenging the grant of said ORC. The said appeal was disposed of remanding the matter back to the Primary Authority in the year 2010. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was conducted and ORC was granted in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 i.e., cultivators’ legal heirs. This sequence of events shows that ORC issued in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13 was challenged in the year 2009 i.e., after lapse of 11 years. Though challenging the ORC after 11 years of time is contended to be inordinate delay, as per orders of the Appellate Authority in Case No.F2/22/2009 dated 24.12.2010, it is held that the case was filed before the said Authority in the year 2000 and took many adjournments and came up for hearing on 07.08.2009, 28.10.2010, 08.10.2010 and finally on 06.11.2010. Though challenging the ORC after 11 years of time is contended to be inordinate delay, as per orders of the Appellate Authority in Case No.F2/22/2009 dated 24.12.2010, it is held that the case was filed before the said Authority in the year 2000 and took many adjournments and came up for hearing on 07.08.2009, 28.10.2010, 08.10.2010 and finally on 06.11.2010. This finding of the Appellate Authority shows that there was no delay in challenging the ORC dated 04.11.1998 and the same was challenged in the year 2000 and not in 2009 as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, there can be no grievance on the said count. 12. At that point of time as per the contempt appeal filed by the appellants, there were negotiations for arriving at a compromise. Apparently, a compromise was reached between the parties and respondent Nos.10 to 13 have given amount to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for avoiding prolonged litigation. When there was knowledge about the appeal filed in the year 2009, the appellants cannot deny the knowledge about the proceedings before the Primary Authority. The appellants had knowledge about respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the ORC before the Primary Authority. It appears that on account of challenge to the ORC, respondent Nos.10 to 13 have executed a registered sale deeds in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2. The appellants are not even revealing the year in which they have purchased the subject land from respondent Nos.10 to 13. From the narration of the facts by the appellants, it appears that appellant Nos.1 and 2 have purchased the subject land with knowledge about the proceedings before the Primary Authority between respondent Nos.1 to 9 on one hand and respondent Nos.10 to 13 on the other hand. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim they do not have knowledge about the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Primary Authority. This Court sees that there is transfer of subject land by the LRs’ of Inamdar i.e., respondent Nos.10 to 13 in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2 followed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 transferring the subject land in favour of appellant Nos.3 to 6 while proceedings were still pending before the Primary Authority and the impugned orders were passed once remanding the matter and then by issuance of ORC in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9. 13. 13. Coming to the aspect of serving notice on the respondents by the Primary Authority, it is seen that the order clearly states that notices were issued in Form-II to both the parties with direction to file written arguments along with supporting documents. The case was listed on several occasions on 16.06.2012, 21.07.2012, 06.10.2012, 06.01.2013, 16.02.2013, 30.03.2013, 30.11.2013, 26.09.2015, 03.02.2018 and 17.02.2018. Inspite of giving said opportunities, the respondents did not file written arguments and did not produce documentary evidence. Therefore, on the basis of the contents of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Pahani for the year 1973-74 and Pahani for the year 1984-85, the ORC is issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9. According to the appellants, the Primary Authority has not verified whether the notices were served on respondent Nos.10 to 13 or not, instead proceeded to dispose of the matter against the dead persons. 14. It is the case of the appellants that an order passed against dead persons is nullity under law. This Court is not inclined to believe this version as the appellants have also arrayed respondent Nos.10 to 13 as parties to the appeal. In case they are dead persons, there is no reason for arraying respondent Nos.10 to 13 as parties to the appeal. Further, the present Civil Revision Petition also contains the names of respondent Nos.10 to 13 as respondents. In case, the respondents are dead, they need not be arrayed as respondents. In fact as per cause title in the revision petition, respondent Nos.1 to 9 are shown to be not necessary parties and that revision petition is preferred against respondent Nos.10 to 13 who are alleged dead persons by ignoring respondent Nos.1 to 9 who are actually granted with ORC. Therefore, this Court sees no issue about the Primary Authority or the Appellate Authority passing orders against dead persons. 15. Further, the appellants are relying upon the ORC issued in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13 in the year 1998 and a copy of the said ORC and proceedings have been produced before this Court. A perusal of the order dated 04.11.1998 shows that the order is proforma order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, without giving any reasoning or basis for issuance of the ORC in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13. A perusal of the order dated 04.11.1998 shows that the order is proforma order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, without giving any reasoning or basis for issuance of the ORC in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13. The proforma contains blanks to be filled up and perfunctory order about perusing the record. The ORC is passed in favour of respondent Nos.10 to 13 without giving any reasons as to the entries in revenue records but solely on the basis of respondent Nos.10 to 13 being legal heirs of Inamdar. A person being legal heir of Inamdar is not sufficient for granting of ORC. The crucial point to be proven is the possession over the land as on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973 and to prove the same, there is not a single document forthcoming. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to believe the version of the appellants that the proceedings before the Primary Authority were not in notice of the appellants or that the order passed by the Primary Authority in case No.K/7082/2011 is against the dead persons. 16. Lastly, coming to the issue of the possession on the date of vesting, the revenue records more particularly Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 shows that one Chakali Yellaiah as Inamdar and Kuppagiri Basappa as cultivator. Likewise, the Pahani for the year 1984-85 shows kuppagiri Chennaiah as cultivator. In case, the appellants were in possession, there was no reason for recording LRs of Kuppagiri Basappa as the cultivators. The appellants have failed to produce documents to demonstrate their possession before the Primary Authority. 17. Without placing any evidence before the Primary Authority, the appellants are claiming to be in possession on the basis of one panchanama allegedly conducted. As per panchanama dated 30.06.2018, appellant Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the subject land from the year 2011 and thereafter, appellants Nos.3 to 6, who are purchasers from appellant Nos.1 and 2, are in possession of the subject land. The contents of the panchanama clearly indicate that the appellants are in possession from the year 2011 only. That being the case, the appellant ought to have produced the documents to show possession of the subject land by their vendors i.e., respondent Nos.10 to 13 as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. The contents of the panchanama clearly indicate that the appellants are in possession from the year 2011 only. That being the case, the appellant ought to have produced the documents to show possession of the subject land by their vendors i.e., respondent Nos.10 to 13 as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. In the absence of such evidence, this Court cannot interfere with the findings given by the Primary Authority vide order dated 31.03.2018 in Case No.K/7082/2011 and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.04.2024 in appeal No.F2/11366/2018. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.