Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2008

This is a batch of 13 writ petitions arising out of common

29.11.2003 No.F1/4726/1997 passed by respondent No.1, whereby while setting aside grant of Occupancy Right Certificates (for short, ‘the ORCs’) issued in favour of respondent No.7, declared that the land in question were absolutely vested in the Government and continue to be the Government land. Vast extents of land in Sy.Nos.4 to 18, 20, 22 and 25 of Ravalkol Village, Medchal Mandal, were originally held by two branches, namely, Hyder Ali Sidiqi and Riyasath Ali/Zahid Ali. The said properties changed several hands and the petitioners in these writ petitions, except in WP.No.14926 of 2004, are the last of the purchasers, who claim that they purchased the properties, which are in their respective possession, from the successors-in-interest of one or the other of the above mentioned two branches. The petitioners in WP.No.14926 of 2004 claimed that they are entitled to be registered as occupants of the lands along with the legal heirs of late Zahid Ali.

Six individuals, namely, T. Suryakala wife of T.Brahmananda Rao, T. Saroja wife of T. Venkatachary, Sri Laurel Educational Society, R.Kumara Swamy son of Mallaiah, T. Sukanya daughter of Brahmananda Rao and J.Kedari son of Yetirajan approached respondent No.3 for grant of ORCs under Section 10 of A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) (one or the other of them is impleaded as respondent No.7 in the 12 writ petitions and all six of them are impleaded as respondent Nos.7 to 12 in WP.No.14926 of 2004). They were granted ORCs by respondent No.3. Questioning the said order, respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed appeals before respondent No.1. The said appeals were disposed of by respondent No.1 setting aside the ORCs and declaring that the lands are absolutely vested in the Government and continue to be the Government lands. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions questioning this order of respondent No.1.

Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Nos.2497, 950, 973, 1950, 1961, 1981 and 2499 of 2005, Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Nos.1628, 2657, 3654, 3660 and 8177 of 2004, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No one represented the petitioners in WP.No.14926 of 2004 and the private respondents in these writ petitions. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by respondent No.1 is in serious infraction of principles of natural justice, as no notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, who are the registered owners of the properties. They further argued that the reasoning of respondent No.1 based on which he held that the lands vested in the Government is totally unsound and the findings are equivocal and ambiguous and hence, the order is liable to be set aside.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to support the order of respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 stated that he verified the original pahanies obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal and found that the lands in question are Kancha lands and no one cultivated the same. In the concluding part of the order, respondent No.1 observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad while granting ORCs to the abovementioned six persons, has not verified the extract of the pahanies, which clearly showed that the lands are Kancha grazing lands/waste lands and not cultivated by any one of the occupancy right certificate holders or the inamdars or their heirs during any period from 1970-71, 1976-77 including as of 01.11.1973, the date, which is relevant for the purpose of considering grant of occupancy certificates.

Ultimately, respondent No.1 in his order held as under: “In view of the above it is clearly evident that the land is fallow as such the so called certificate holders are not entitled for grant of occupancy certificate provisions of A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, even if their names are recorded in the pahanies as possessors. The Hon’ble High Court in B. Ramender Reddy & others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District & others (1993) (2) An.WR 84 (DB) in Writ Appeal Nos.600, 637, 638, 639 and 838/87 dated

27.04.1993 held that occupancy rights certificate cannot be granted in respect of grazing lands.” With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is passed without any notice to the petitioners, a perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that none of the petitioners in these writ petitions are parties to the proceedings before respondent No.1. While three persons, namely, Nafeequnnisa Begum, Rafeequnnisa Begum Tajunnisa Begum (Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in all these writ petitions) were the appellants, the six persons, in whose favour ORCs were issued, were the respondents. It cannot therefore be disputed and as a fact it is not disputed that the petitioners were not given any notice and opportunity of hearing, before respondent No.1 passed impugned order. In support of their plea that they have purchased the properties and therefore they have interest therein, each of the petitioners in the twelve writ petitions filed separate copies of sale deeds.

In the counter affidavit filed in WP.No.2499 of 2005, respondent No.3 admitted that mutation was granted in the name of the petitioner therein and her name was recorded as pattadar in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.20 in the pahani for the year 2001-02 of Ravalkole Village. In the counter affidavit filed in WP.No.2497 of 2005, respondent No.3 stated that in respect of Ac.10.10 guntas, Ac.3.17 guntas and Ac.12.22 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.14, 20 and 13 respectively, the name of the petitioner therein is recorded as pattadar. No counter affidavits have been filed in other cases to deny the claim of the petitioners that they purchased the properties under the registered sale deeds. In the face of these facts, I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that being persons, who are vitally interested in the subject matter of the dispute, they are entitled to notices and opportunity of hearing in the appeals filed before respondent No.1.

But the fact remains that they were not given any notices before the impugned order is passed. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the order under challenge is passed in violation of principles of natural justice resulting in grave miscarriage of justice caused to the petitioners. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings of respondent No.1, even on merits, cannot be sustained, I have carefully gone through the impugned order. While the appellants before respondent No.1 filed copies of purported Khasra Pahanies from the years 1954-55 up to the year 1991-91, the Khasra Pahanies for the years 1954-55 shows the name of Hyder Ali Sidiqi as “Inamdar/Pattadar” in column 5 and mentioned as ‘Panmaqtha’ column 4 pertaining “Inam/Patta” and in all the latter years, the names of Riyasath Ali and Zahid Ali were shown under column No.5. From the years 1973-74 the name of C.Venkat Ram Reddy was shown in column No.6 i.e., in “Name of Possessor” column.

From the year 1973-74, the names of Riyasath Ali and Zahid Ali appeared under column No.6. From the year 1991-92, the last column, namely, column No.8 pertaining to name of the crop and extent “Kancha (fallow)” is shown in all the pahanies. In his order, while stating that he has summoned the original pahanies from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, respondent No.3 has extracted the entries therein, which show that from the years 1970-71, the names of Riyasath Ali and Zahid Ali are shown under the column “Name of the Inamdar”. For many years, the name of Venkat Ram Reddy is shown as possessor and for one year, namely, 1975-76, the entry ‘Sontham’ is shown under the possessor column. Under the column pertaining to the name of the crop, ‘Kancha’ is written for all the survey numbers except for Sy.No.25 for the years 1971-72, 1974-75 for which ‘Padava’ is mentioned. On the basis of the abovementioned entries in the alleged original pahanies, respondent No.1 had come to the conclusion that the lands in respect of which ORCs were granted were Kancha grazing lands/waste lands and not cultivated by any one.

Having so held, at another place the portion of which was reproduced hereinabove, respondent No.1 held that the land is ‘fallow’ and therefore no ORCs could be granted under the provisions of the Act. From the facts discussed above, two issues were germane for consideration before respondent No.1, namely, whether the lands were private patta lands, as claimed by the petitioners herein or inam lands. If they were inam lands, whether they were Kancha, which means grazing lands. If it is found that the lands were private patta lands, irrespective of whether they were grazing lands or not, the persons, who were found to be in possession on the relevant date, namely, 01.11.1973 were entitled to the grant of ORCs. Similarly, if the lands are inam lands, but not grazing lands, still the eligible persons are entitled to get ORCs. But conversely, if the lands are inam lands and also grazing lands, no ORCs could be granted in view of Section 4(1) (a) of the Act.

On the basis of the purported entries in the pahanies, respondent No.1 had come to the conclusion that the lands are inam lands. However, with respect to the nature of the lands, he used different expressions such as ‘kancha’, ‘grazing’, ‘waste’ and ‘fallow’. While kancha and grazing convey the same meaning, waste and fallow have a different connotation. While there is prohibition for grant of ORC in respect of the former category, there is no such prohibition in respect of the latter category. Therefore, even assuming that the lands were inam lands, still the eligible persons would be entitled to grant of ORCs, if it is shown that the lands were not grazing lands, but waste or fallow lands. Sri Raghuveer Reddy invited my attention to the entries in the pahanies extracted by respondent No.1 in his order and contended that the very fact that the names of private persons are shown under the column “the name of the possessor” shows that they were not grazing lands, but were cultivated by the private persons.

He also contended that while the entries in the pahanies produced by the appellants before respondent No.1 show that under column No.4 the lands are shown as ‘Panmaqtha’ which means private, no such column is shown in the purported pahanies obtained by respondent No.1 and extracted in his order. I find some force in this contention. If respondent No.1 had given the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, there would have been a possibility of the petitioners trying to convince respondent No.1 that either the lands are private patta lands or that they were not grazing lands, even if they were inam lands, which qualify for grant of ORC. In such an event, the order of respondent No.1 would not have been as ambiguous as it has been with regard to the nature of the land. From the discussion undertaken above, I hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the appeals filed by the three persons, namely, Nafeequnnisa Begum, Rafeequnnisa Begum and Tajunnisa Begum after giving an opportunity of hearing to the original parties to the appeals and also to all the petitioners in these writ petitions.

Within eight weeks from today, the petitioners shall file their written submissions before respondent No.1. On receipt of such submissions, respondent No.1 shall give notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties, including the petitioners and pass appropriate order within a period of six months from today. Subject to the above observations, the writ petitions are allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.2138, 3509, 4803, 10629 and 4816 of 2004 and 1251, 1278, 2614, 2626, 2652, 3388 and 3390 of 2005 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous. Date: 21.07.2008 ES C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J