The High Court · 2025

22.Chirraboina @ Siragoni Bixamaiah, S/o Muthaiah, Aged 60 yrs, Occ: Agril 23.Aerpula @ Velpula Raithamma, Wo Pentaiah, aged 60 yrs, Occ: Agril 24.Aerpula @ Velpula Srinu, S/o Pentaiah, aged 40 yrs, Occ: Agril 25.Aerpula @ Velpula Vishnu, S/o Pentaiah, aged 36 yrs, Occ: Agril 26. Bojja Saidamma, Wo Gandhi, D/o Paaidimanu Papamma, aged 50 yrs, Occ: Housewife, All are R/o Kachalapuram Village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. (R20 brought on record as LR of the deceased R3 as per C.O. dt.21.10.2021 in lA No.1/21) (R21 brought on record as LR of the deceased R4 as per C.O. d1.21.10.2021 in lA No.2/21) (R22 brought on record as LR of the deceased R5 as per C.O. d1.21.10.2021 in lA No.3/21) (RE 23, tg 25 brought on record as LR of the deceased R7 as per C.O. dt.21.10.2021 in lA No.4/21) (n.zp.!royg^h.! on record as LR of the de@ased R10 as per c.o . dt.21.10.2021 in lA No.5/21) ...Respondents l.A. NO: I oF 2012(CRPMP. NO: 3838 OF 2012t Petition under section 151 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of tne pliitLn, the High C";; ;;;1" pleased.to grant stay of a[ furthei proceeorng!-;ctuding issuance of pattadar passbooks and rifle deeds.to_the Responoen-t No".s tJ 16 in respect admeasuring Ac'r8.13 gts., in sy.No.rz'ano nc.ro.i2 gts., in sv.r.rris'.,tr"I"o "i'L"a at,Kachalapuram Viilage, tUy.nugg{e_gandat, Natgondi Oi"t., in pui"rrn"u'"r order dt. 't 1 . 1 .2009 in proc. No. E/4gs2l96 on' in" "nr" or ttre ' z"a- ,""p"rol.t, pending disposal of the CRp lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Petition under section 151 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in.s.up.p9l .of tf,e pliition, the High Court r"V-0. pleased to receive the order dated 19/03/.1gsa'made in case No. E/212011990 by the 2nd Respondent -RDo as an additionaieriJen"e in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioners: SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11, 16, 20 to 26: SRI J SURESH BABU The Court made the following: ORDER ,,'' ,art THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJIINA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO -2a90or. 20L2 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order d.ated 07 .Ol.2Ol2 in Appeal Case No.F2l 1381120O9 on the file of Joint Collector, Nalgonda in confrrming the Occupancy Rights Certificates issued to the respondents 3 to 6 vide proceedings No'E/4852196 dated I 1 .O 1.2OO8 by the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Nalgonda'

2. The petitioners herein are appellant Nos'3 and 4 in Appeal Case No.F2/ l38l l2OO9 on the file of Joint Collector' Nalgonda. The averments in the petition before the Joint Collector are that the petilioners challenged the order passed by the Revenue Divisional OIIicer, Nalgonda (RDO) granting Occupancy Rights Certihcates (ORCs) in favor of the respondents under Section 8 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners contend that the order is contrary to law, evidence on record, and probability of the case. The RDO granted ORCs to the respondents without conducting any inquiry into their eligibility and entitlement to the Patta Certi{icate for the lands pertaining to S1'.No.12 to an 2 extent of Ac. 18.13 guntas and Sy.No. 15 to an extent of 4c.16.32 guntas of Kachalapuram Village of Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. The respondents are neither Inarindars nor in possession of Inam lands. Furthermore, the Division Village Oflicer was found guilty of tampering with revenue records, making false entries, and he was punished accordingly. The petitioners further contend ttrat these false entries should not have been considered, and except for these entries, there is no material evidence to show that the respondents are in occupation of the subject lands. The respondents tailed to demonstrate how they came into possession of Inam lalds and how they are entitled to get ORCs, especially when the original Inamdars of the petitioners, have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The RDO failed to appreciate the evidence on record and apply relevant judgtnents of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and Supreme Court r$arding Inam lands. The respondents have not shown any condection to tJle Iands except the false entries made by the Division Village Officer, as such, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated 1 1.O 1.2OO8 of the RDO. 3

3. The respondents therein have not hled any counter but prayed to dismiss the appeal,

4. After considering the submissions of both sides, the Joint Collector observed that the respondents were issued ORCs by the RDO, which observed that the respondents have been in possession of the lands much prior to its vesting in the Government. The RDO's decision was based on a petition hled by the appellants, stating that they had hled a civil suit vide O,S.No. 172 of l98l on ttre Frle of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda for redressal, and respondents frled O.S.No.SO of 1982 before the same Court, which were clubbed together and disposed of on 26.08.1988. On appeal vide A.S.No.3S and 39 of 1988 on the frle of District Judge, Nalgonda, the suits were disposed of observing that lands are Inam lands and in view of abolition of Inams by the Government vide Amendment Act, 29 laS t}:.e adjudication by the Court is not binding and advised to seek redressal before the Collector. Further the Court records revea,l that the subject lands were initially Seth Sindhi Inams, which were converted into patta lands during 1957-58. The RDO, Nalgonda, passed orders on 19.03.1994, concluding that the suit lands were patta lands after 1958 4 and fell under the provisions of the Act. The pahani records for various years, from 1955-56 to 19go_gl, show that the respondents were in possession of the lands. Specifically, the records for L973-74 confirm that the respondents, father was in possession of the land as on 01.11.1973, the crucial date for granting ORCs. The l"t respondent therefore, observed that the party respondents were in possession of the subject lands supporting the RDO,s decision in issuing ORCs to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11, 16,20 to 26. During the pendency of this case respondent Nos.3, 4, S, T and 1O have died and their L.Rs were brought on record.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by granting ORCs to respondents 3 to 16 without considering the petitioners' claim as per the provisions of the Act. The respondent authorities lailed to provide the petitioners with a fair opportunity to present their case and committed 5 procedural irregularities. They did not examine the documents ald records independently, leading to perverse hndings that conhrmed the orders of the lower authority. The respondents obtained ORCs in the names of deceased individuals, which is fraudulent and vitiates the entire proceedings. The respondent authorities should have appreciated tl.is fact and set aside the said certihcates. 7 . karned counsel further contended that the respondents suppressed the fact that several of them had died during the pendency of claim, which is a willful and malicious act. This suppression of fact disentitles them from making claims under the Act. The respondents colluded with revenue authorities to manipulate and tamper with revenue records, including pahanies. The village ollicer involved was also suspended for tampering with the records. Therefore, the tampered entries cannot be the basis for granting ORCs to the respondents. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in Gurnam Singh (Df through L.Rs and others Vs 6 .)' Gurbachan Kaur (D) by L,Rs and othersr and Kiran Si.gh and Others Vs Chaman paswaa and Others2.

8. Admittedly, the petitioners, ancestor, Jetti Ramaiah, was Inamdar of the lands, and petitioners have continued in possession. The stray entries showing the respondents, names are based on tampered records and cannot be the basis for rejecting the petitioners, claim. A fair and reasonable inquiry would have revealed that only the petitioners and their ancestors have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land. The Tahsildar, Munugode, improperly refused to issue death certihcates for the respondents upon the petitioners' application. If these death certificates were summoned, they would establish the petitioners, contention that the respondents died prior to the entire proceedings, as such, the entire proceedings against the dead persons are liable to be set aside.

9. The contention of respondents is that there is no suppression of factum of death of respondents during the pendency of claim before 2od respondent when the arguments 1 2017 (s) ALD t4 (SC) 2 AJR 1954 Supreme Court 34O 7 were already heard and during the course of pronouncement of judgment, if the parties are died the decree passed against the dead persons is nullity. [n support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.P.Thirugaaanam (Df by LRs Vs Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and otherss. Therefore, that is not a ground to set aside the judgment. Further, the competent Civil Court gave a hncling tirat the lands are Inam lands but not the patta lands and basing on tl.e same, the Joint Collector passed orders. As such, it cannot be said that the lands in question are patta lands. i0. Considcring the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the main question involved in this case is whether the Civil Court is competent to give a finding against the finding ofRDO about the nature of land. The RDO carne to the conciusion that it is a patta land whereas, the civil Court declared it as an Inam land and there is a bar of jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Act. When there is a bar under the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the nature of land. The parties have to hle Revision before this 'Atn 996 Suprem,: Court 1 16 \ 8 court against the finding of Joint collector to decide whether the schedule properties are Inam l,ands or patta lalds instead basing on the hndings of Joint Collector the parties approached civil Court and Civil Court decided that the subject lands are Inam lands. The civil Court is not the appellate authority, as such, the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector to decide the matter independently about the nature of property arrd by giving opportunity to both the parties to bring t].e L.Rs of the deceased on record and decide the matter afresh.

11. With the above directions, ttle Civil Revision petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petirions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Court of the Joint Collector at Nalgonda. 2. One CC to Sri L prabhakar.ReOOy, 3. One CC to Sri J Suresh Babu, Adlocate tOpdCi 4. Two CD Copies nO-vocate tOpUCl - - N, ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 07lill2o25 ORDER CRP.No.2890 ol 2012 22 StP 2ffi * Qs j Pr). r 111".'').)' --=-z/ ALLOWNG THE CRP WTHOUT COSTS