The High Court · 2025

'1 1. M. Yadaiah, S/o. late Pochaiah, Aged about 56 years, 12. M. Solaiah, S/o. late Sailu, '13.M. Swamy, S/o. late Pochaiah, Aged about 55 years, '14. M. Eshwaraiah, S/o. late Sailu, Aged about 65 years, '15. M. Narsimha, S/o. late Sailu, Aged about 75 years, (Respondent Nos. .l are R/o. Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict) 16. Smt. M. Vijaya Reddy, Wo. Bhoopal Reddy, R/o. HNo,5-38, Dammaiguda Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Respondent Nos. 10 to 16 are not necessary parties to the present proceedings) 1 to 1 5 ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings No. F1ts2o4t2o12 dated 31-12-2014 on the file of Joint collector-|, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad including dispossession of the petitioners in iespect of land admeasurini Ac.2-2g Gts in sy.No.955 of Koheda Viilage, Abduilapurmet Mandar 1t-ne tnen Hayathnagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Cip. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER ,o THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADIIA RANI CI\4L REVISION PETITION No.1135 of 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - respondents 2 to 4 aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2014 passed in Case No.F1/520412012 by the learned Joint Collector I, Rangareddy District.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioners - respondents 2 to 4. No representation for respondents, despite service ofnotice on respondents 1 to 3 and through substitute service on respondents 4 to 9.

3. Leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the lands admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas and Ac.5-17 guntas in Suwey Nos.954 and 955 respectively situated at Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal were Mafi Inam lands. The patta stands in the name of Dappu Venkaiah, Gyara Thirupathaiah and Mylaram Sailu, who were the inamdars and possessors of the said lands. The Mylaram family members approached the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer (for short "RDO"), Rangareddy, East Division, for obtaining Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short "ORC") during the year 2009. Subsequently, the said authority issued order vide Proceeding No. J/448/2009 d,ated 05.12.2009 holding that the lands i 2 Dr.GRR, J crP_l135 2019 in Survey Nos.954 & 955 of Koheda Village were convefted into plots and rejected the request of Mylaram family members for issuance of ORC. Aggrieved by the said orders of the RDO, the MyJararn family members approached the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. After conducting the enqulrJ, the Joint Collector had set aside the orders of the RDO and directed the RDO to take up a detailed de novo enquiry. The RDO had issued notices to the concemed in Case No. J1314312010 and conducted enquiry. After enquiry, the RDO issued ORC to an exlent of Ac.2-29 guntas in Survey No.955 of Koheda Village in favor of Mylaram family members. Similarlv. the RDO vide proceeding No. J/4523/2010 issued ORC to Gyara Pentaiah, S/o.Thirupathaiah, Smt. Gyara Danamma, Wo.Bikshapathi and Gyara Yadaiah in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.l-14 guntas, Ac.0-27 guntas ancl Ac.0-27 guntas respectively in Survey No.955 of Koheda Village on 10.05.2011.

3.1. Leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners herein further submitted that the petitioners herein were absolute owners and were in peaceful possession and enjoyment along with Smt.Gyara Danamma, Wo.Bikshapathi over the land measuring Ac.2-28 guntas in Survey No.955. i-he petitioners and Smt.Gyara Danamma were issued ORC vide proceeding No. J/452312010 dated

10.05.2011. The said land was not converted into plots at any point of time. As on today, the land admeasuring Ac.2-28 guntas was a vacant land and was not in the shape of residential plots. \he RDO after de novo enquiry only, issued \ \ 3 Dr.GR& J crp_1135_2019 the ORC in favor of the revision petitioners herein. The allegation of the respondents that the Gyara family members through General Power of Attomoy (for short "GPA') had transferred the lands in the year 1985 in favor of B.Balreddy was not correct. The inam lands could not be transferred. The said GPA was fabricated for the purpose of false litigation. Without transfer of valid tegal rights, the laying of plots, if any also, would not hold good in the eye of law. In fac! there were no such plots existing in the said lands as alleged by the respondents.

3.2. Leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the Joint Collector vide impugned order set aside the orders passed in File I No. J14523/2010 dated 07.05.2011 granting ORC in favor of the petitioners herein to an extent of Ac.2-28 guntas in Survey No.955 of Koheda Village while allowing the contention of the respondents I I to 15 in File No. J/3143/2010 dated 05.03.2011 granting ORC in their favor in respect of land bearing Survey No.955 admeasuring Ac.2-29 guntas of Koheda Village.

3.3. Leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the Joint Collector while observing that there was delay in filing the appeal filed by the respondents 4 to t herein (the appellants therein) and that they had not explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal' entertained the appeal without fiting a delay condonation petition. He failed to observe that the 7 4 Dr.GR& J crp_l135_2019 respondents / appellants were third parties to the subject land and that they never claimed ORCs and that they failed to file the sale deeds. under which they alleged to have purchased the plots from the GPA oflhe rcvision petitioners herein and also a copy of the GPA.

3.4. Leamed Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the Joint Collector failed to see that the once the land was vested with the Government under the Inams Abolition Act, then the sales made out of the subject land were void unless the ORCs were issued after due enquiry and failed to see that the claim of the respondents appellants r.r,as frivolous and speculative and it had no substance.

4. Perused the record and the impugned order passed by the leamed Joint Collector - I, Rangareddy District dated3l.12.2014 in case No.Fl,t5204l20l2

5. The order would disclose that the appeal was filed before the Joint Collector challenging the orders passed by the RDO in File No. J1452312010 dated O7 .09.201 I as well as the orders passed by the RDO in File No. J/3143/2010 in Survey No.955 to an extent of Ac.2-28 guntas and Ac.2-29 guntas respectively. The leamed Joint Collector observed that the appeal was filed on 19.12.2012 i.e. one year after passing of the impugned order on

07.09.2011. But no delay condqnation petition was filed and no reasons were explained for the delay in filing the appeal. When the Joint Collector observed -l Dr.CR& J crp_I135_2019 that the appeal was frled with a delay and no reasons were given by the appellants for condoning the delay, he ought to have dismissed the appeal. But allowing the same without any petition filed by the respondents - appellants is considered as irregular.

6. The Joint Collector in his order further observed that the total extent of land of Survey No.954 and 955 was Ac.l2-17 guntas, whereas the ORC had been given on an extent of Ac.2-29 guntas and Ac.2-28 guntas in Survey No.955. The plea of the appellants that no fresh cnquiry report had been obtained by the RDO before issuing the ORC would not sustain when the RDO himself had stated to have conducted enquiry with regard to status of the land and further observed that the appeltants did not file any documentary evidence showing the conversion of the land in question under the provisions of Section 61 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Land Use Act, 2006. While admitting the case of the respondents l1 to 15, he observed that there were no valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the RDO, Rangareddy East Division in File No. Jl3l43/2OlO dated 05.03.2011 granting ORC in favor of the respondents I I to l5 herein (respondents 5 to 9 therein) in respect of land bearing Survey No.955 admeasuring Ac.2-29 guntas of Koheda village. He further observed that as the appellants therein were disputing that the GPA holder of respondents 2 to 4 sold the plots to them and the order of the RDo dated 07.05.2011 would reveal that i 6 Dr.GRIl, J crp_l135_2019 respondents 2 to 4 admitted to have given GPA to Balreddv in the year l9g5 due to their family necessity and such an act ofpetitioners respondents 2 to 4 would give a conclusion that the GPA holder must have sotd the plots to the appellants, allowed the appeal partly in respect of respondents 2 to 4 therein i.e. the revision petitioners herein.

7. The above order would disclose that the Joint Collector passed the order on assumptions without the respondents - appellants filing the sale deeds under which they alleged to have purchased the plos from the Gl,A of the revision petitioners hcrein and also a copy of the GpA without any proof'of the alleged purchase made by the respondents - appellants from the (ipA holder of the revision petitioners.

8. As the order passed by the Joint Collector in setting aside the ORC granted in lavor of the revision petitioners herein was passed on assumptions and in an irregular manner, without filing a petition for cond.nation of delay, it is considered fit to set aside the same.

9. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 passed in case No.Fl/520412012 by rhe Joint Collector - I, Rangareddy District. No order as to costs 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_I135 2019 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District. 2. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies @. sd/- MoH ISMAIL ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER s $ $ .; (i _.; '+_.,42 l:' ,3!H 'l .t: ! (: l, -- i' HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 -) 3 i) \ ORDER CRP.No.1135 of 2019 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. + lad