WP/11777/2002 of H.MADHUSUDHAN KANOJIGUDA R.R.DTAND15 ORS Vs JT.COL. R.R.DT HYDAND 3 ORS on 29 December 2005

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K.Pratap Reddy, T.Subrahmanyam, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana,Sri P.M.Gopala Rao and Sri T.Jagadish, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theparties and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

Since in all these cases, challenge is being made against the very sameproceedings, hence, they are being taken up together for disposal.

The petitioners in W.P.No.11777 of 2002 and 14715 of 2002 claim as thesuccessors in interest and legal representatives of the erstwhile protected tenants. InW.P.No.18107 of 2002 and C.R.P.No.4830 of 2003, which is filed under Section 28of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “theAct”), the petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the lands in question from theInamdars whereas petitioners in W.P.No.14715 of 2002 claim to be the purchasersfrom the tenants in pursuance of an agreement of sale, who also filed O.S.No.195 of1995 and the same having been decreed, the first appeal is pending. The petitionersin W.P.No.18107 of 2002 and C.R.P.No.4830 of 2003 also filed an application inW.P.M.P.No.6443 of 2004 to implead itself as respondent No.5 in the writ petitionNo.11777 of 2002. Having regard to the claims as set out and with a view to give anopportunity of hearing, the said implead petition stands allowed.

The facts, which are necessary for disposal of all these cases is in regard tothe entitlement of occupancy rights and consequently the certificates passed thereinunder the provisions of the Act. The lands in question are admeasuring to an extentof Ac.62-16 gts. In survey Nos.373, 375, 376, 378, 379 to 381 and 386 situated atKhanojiguda, H/o Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. Thesaid village is stated to be a jagir village. There have been rival claims, one asprotected tenants and other as Inamdars. Some of the petitioners claim that they arethe successors of the original protected tenants, namely, Shivalingam and oneAchaiah. They were granted protected tenancy certificates under Sections 35 and37 of the A.P (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Further, the landbeing mafi inam, consequent upon the advent of the Act, the persons in occupationon the relevant date, i.e., 01.11.1973 are entitled to the occupancy rights de horseprotected tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act. It is claimed that since their father

was issued protected tenancy certificate, they applied for grant of occupancycertificates before the competent authority, namely, Inams Tribunal-cum-RevenueDivisional Officer, Chevella, who after holding an enquiry passed an order on07.01.1995 holding that they are entitled to the occupancy rights having regard tothe proof of possession supported by entries in the pahanies. It was also held thattheir predecessors in title being protected tenants, there is nothing on record to showthat there was any surrender by the said protected tenants prior to 1954. However,as against the said orders granting occupancy rights in their favour, the Inamdar,namely, respondent No.3 in W.P.11777 of 2002 filed regular appeal as provided forunder Section 24 of the Act before the appellate authority, namely the firstrespondent, i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy claiming that such occupancy rightsshould be granted only in his favour. In the said proceedings, the petitioners inW.P.No.18017 of 2002 and C.R.P.No.4830 of 2003 got impleaded as RespondentNo.8. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.14715 of 2002 was also a party asrespondent No.10. After hearing all the sides, the said appellate authority haspassed orders on 29.4.2002 allowing the appeal and setting aside the occupancyrights granted in their favour mainly on the ground that the original protected tenantshave already surrendered their rights much before 1954 and therefore the questionof grant of occupancy rights and certificates does not arise. Further, there is nosupporting and valid entries for grant of any such occupancy rights and it was alsofound that the lands in question are in fact, Government lands. Challenging theseorders, all these present cases are being filed.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is to theeffect that having regard to the fact that their possession is well supported by entriesin the pahanies as on the relevant date, the appellate authority could not have statedthat it would not constitute valid basis under the Act. That apart, the finding that theland is that of Government is totally without any basis and the petitioners were notput to any notice as such nor given any opportunity to rebut on these aspects. It isalso their contention that having regard to the chequered events and the documentswould amply show the petitioners’ claim for grant of occupancy rights.

Repelling the said contentions, the claim of the petitioners was sought to be deniedand further stating that the order of the appellate authority is a well considered and reasoned order and it does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

Considering these and other submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners, themain question, which arises for consideration in all these proceedings is as towhether on the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders of the appellateauthority, reversing the order of the primary authority and repelling the claim foroccupancy rights by the petitioners is valid?

From the pleadings and also on perusal of the record, the undisputed factsare that the village in which the lands in question are situated is a jagir village andalso the Inam. It is not seriously denied that the original predecessors in title,namely, Shivalingam and Achaiah were the protected tenants, who appear to havebeen recognized as such, under Sections 35 and 37 of the A.P (T.A) Tenancy andAgricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is also not in serious dispute nor challenge to the factthat protected tenants surrendered their tenancy rights prior to 1954 and their nameswere rounded off by making necessary entries and corrections in the tenancyregister. Even the claim made for succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy Actby one wing of the legal representatives was also rejected by the competentauthority concerned, namely, Mandal Revenue Officer as per orders dated7.10.1994. Therefore, there is no dispute, much less a claim as protected tenant andthe only claim which revolves around and to be considered is for grant of occupancyrights on the basis of the Act as they were in possession of the lands on the relevantdate.

It is seen from the record and also the finding of fact as arrived at by the appellateauthority that an application has been filed in Form –1 for grant of occupancy rights,whereupon, a report was called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri whostated that though the name of Shivalingam is reported to be shown as protectedtenant in Survey No.373, 375, 376,378 and 379 and the name of Achiga is reportedagainst Sy.Nos.380, 381 and 386. However, their names were rounded off asagainst the old survey number 289, which corresponds to above mentioned surveynumbers. It was also stated in the report that they are not in possession of the lands.

However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the primary authority held that they are notentitled to claim any status as legal representatives of protected tenants, but havingregard to the possession, they are entitled to grant of occupancy rights. Further,considering the fact that the order of the primary tribunal was rested on certainentries which were also held to be not regular one and therefore, the appellateauthority considering the fact that there is no proof of tenancy much less lease orrent receipts, held that the question of any valid possession or any supporting entryin the pahanies is not acceptable. It is also observed by the appellate authority thatthe pahanie entries made by the Patwari are also conflicted for the crucial years,which describe the classification of the land as patta, while for the other years, it isdescribed as Dastagardha. It is also observed that the pahanies do not constantlyshow the same name continuously or consistently. The alleged tenancy as claimedby them was held to be not proved. Therefore, the appellate authority having given acategorical finding on appreciation of facts and the same resting upon the materialproduced and available before him to the effect that there being no proof ofpossession, the question of granting any occupancy rights, much less certificatesdoes not arise.

Even in regard to the claim made by the association in the other writ petition, thesame was also rejected on the ground that they cannot claim any relief as such,especially when they purchased the lands from the inamdars who had no title at alland the very claim of the Inamdars is being negatived.

In this regard and supporting their claim, several contentions are sought to beurged referring to various provisions under the Tenancy Act and the Inams AbolitionAct. However, the entire case rests on the basic fact as to the possessory rightswithout proof of which, occupancy rights either can be recognized nor can begranted. Having regard to the factual background as noted by the appellateauthority, the claimants who sought for occupancy rights basing upon possessioncannot claim through original protected tenants whose tenancy was already stoodsurrendered, which is evident and supported by the Tenancy Register. Therefore,they would no longer remain as protected tenants nor they have a right as such as atenant. It is not their case that there was any fresh tenancy created, existed orcontinuing as such. As rightly held by the appellate authority, which is a pure finding of fact, in the absence of proof of lease, tenancy supported by valid material, theclaim cannot be upheld. This Court would not venture to re-appreciate the entireevidence to come to a different conclusion, more so, having regard to the findings offact, which are based upon appreciation of evidence and material available beforesuch an authority which is well supported by reasons.

Coming to the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the natureof proceedings arising out under the provisions of the Act, the finding given by theappellate authority, namely, respondent No.1, while rejecting the claim of all thepersons holding that the lands in question are Government lands cannot besustained and therefore, even the direction given to the concerned Mandal RevenueOfficer to take care of the lands cannot also be upheld. There cannot be any doubtthat no such claim has been made on behalf of the Government at any point of timeto the effect that the said land is a Government land and therefore there exists anytitle on its own. Admittedly, it was a jagir village with imams, grant and the protectedtenancy already stood surrendered and therefore, the question of claiming anyindependent rights by the Government does not arise. Even otherwise, no suchclaim has been put forward by the Government in any manner whatsoever. Thatapart, surprisingly, the said finding is given for the first time in the order withoutpetitioners or any of the parties who were appearing before the appellate authoritywere given any notice thereof or being heard as such. Even now, it is not the case ofthe authorities that the Government has got its own independent rights. Havingregard to the nature of proceedings and their restricted scope, the only questionremain before the authorities was as to whether the occupancy rights can begranted, which has to be found on the basis of possession of the claimants whoapplied for. Therefore, the said scope cannot be widened giving a finding, whichgoes beyond the very dispute and the nature of powers conferred under theparticular legislation. Apparently, having rejected the claim of all the persons, theappellate authority appears to have held that the land belongs to the Government. Inthe circumstances, we hold that such a finding is wholly unsustainable. However,irrespective of the fact that we disagree with such a finding, all these cases do notmerit any consideration nor make out any case warranting interference of theimpugned orders.

In the above circumstances, we do not find any merits in the writ petitions and therevision and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

_______________

B.PRAKASH RAO, J

29[th] December 2005RAR

_________________DR.G.YETHIRAJULU, J