KANNARNMA Vs. COLLECTOR RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the past 15 years the parties herein have been litigating for registration as occupants under Sections 4 to 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (hereinafter referred to as Inams Abolition Act) in respect of an inam land bearing old S No. 279 in the village of Alwal of Rangareddy District. The Order impugned in this Writ Petition was passed by the District Collector, Rangareddy, the prescribed authority, on 20-1-87 in file No. B3/6454/ 82 under Sec. 24 of the Inams Abolition Act in consequence of the directions issued by a learned single judge of this Court while disposing of WP Nos. 8870 and 8923/81 dated 12-4-82.

(2.) One Narsing Rao was the original Makhtadar (Inamdar); the inam land was unsurveyed. It appears, in 1335 Fasli (1925) when survey was conducted the land was assigned S. No. 67/1 and 67/2. In the survey conducted in 1341 F (1931) S. No. 279 was assigned for the inam land, the extent of which was Ac. 49-39 guntas. In the resurvey conducted in 1354 F (1944) survey No. 279 was divided into S. Nos. 349, 350, 351 and 352 aggregating Ac. 13-19 guntas. The remaining extent of Ac. 36-20 guntas became part of S. Nos. 602 and 603. The original extent of Ac 49-39 guntas thus came to be covered by the six different survey numbers. Narasing Rao, the original Makthadar executed a perpetual lease for 99 years in favour of one Namassivayam on 27th Dai 1320 F (1910) on an annual lease of Rs. 15/- The land covered by the lease deed was described as Gaddamkunta Bavi of the inam near Madiradoddi Neither the extent of the land nor the boundaries were mentioned in the lease deed. The land was described in the lease deed as:

(3.) Kannamma instituted proceedings under Sec. 87 of the Inams Abolition Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer in 1975 against Sudarshan Reddy and the LRs. of Radhamma (respondents 3 and 4 herein) seeking occupancy rights in respect of the entire land of Ac.'49-39 guntas covered by the old survey No. 279, Similar applications were also filed on behalf of Radhamma and Sudarshan Reddy; The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the pleas raised by Kannamma and Sudarshan Reddy and accepted the contention of Radhamma in respect of S. Nos. 602 and 603. The RDO also declared that Machikanti Veerayya would continue to be the protected tenant in respect of S. Nos. 349 and 350 and Kannamma was entitled for compensation from the Government. Two appeals wire preferred against the decision of the RDO one by Kannamma and another by Sudarshan Rsddy to ths appellate authority, the District Collector who remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the RDO, As the appellate order of the District Collector djd not specifically state that the order appealed against was set aside, the RDO made a request to the District Collector: "to kindly spell out the intention of the appellate authority very clearly so that further action can be taken.." The District Collector by an order dated 4-10-79 amended the appellate order to the effect that; the orders of the lower court dated 30-11-79 are hereby set aside". The Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing both sides decided the matter afresh on 18-2-8O holding that the extent of the land leased out to Namagsivayam, the hus band of Kannamma by the original Malethadar Narsing Rao was only Ac. 7-07 guntas which in turn was leased out by Kannamma to Machikanti Veerayya and as the land was not in the personal cultivation of Kannamma on the date of abolition of inams i.e 20-7-1955 she was not entitled to claim occupancy rights, Radhamma was entitled to occupancy rights in respect of S. Nos. 602 and 603. Tha milatary authorities were not entitled to claim the land covered by S. Nos. 602 and 603. In respect of the remaining land Sudarshan Reddy was entitled to occupancy rights being the successor-in-interest. This order was the subject matter of an appeal to the District Collector who by his order dated 13-10-81 held that the extent of land obtained on lease by Namassivayam from Narsing Rao in 1320 F was Ac. 49-39 guntas but not Ac. 7-07 guntas as asserted by Radhatnma. He directed granting of occupancy rights for the entire land covered by old S No. 279 admeasuring Ac 49-39 guntas in favour of Kannamma Two writ petitions were filed questioning that order before this Court WP Nos 8923/81 by the LR of Radhamma (fourth respondent herein) and WP No. 8870/81 by Sudarshan Reddy, (the third respondent herein). Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order by Jeevan Reddy J who after setting aside the appellate order of the Collector, remanded the matter for disposal afresh with the follo. wing directions: "He (the Collector) shall give notice to all the concerned parties viz, the LRs of Radhamma, Kannama and Sudarshan Reddy. If Machikanti Veerayya appears before him, he may also be heard. The District Collector shall consider all the relevant material adduced by all the parties and decide the following questions viz, (i) what was the extent of the land leased out to Kannamma's husband; (ii) what was the extent sold or transferred, as the case may be, by Kannamma, or by her husband, as the case may be, to Machikanti Veeraiab; (iii) whether the sale in favour of Sudarshan Reddy is valid and effective; and if so what rights accrue to him on that basis; (iv) which of the parties are entitled to be registered as occupants under Secs. 4 to 8 as the case may be; and if so, to what extent? and (v) which of the parties, if any are entitled to compensation. While deciding the above questions, the appellate authority shall keep in mind the following points viz., (i) the date of abolition of inams and their vesting in the State, is 20th July, 1955: (ii) for deciding the rights of the parties, under Secs. 4 to 8, the relevant date is the aforesaid date of abolition and vesting: and (iii) that, any alienation of their interest or right by the Inamdar, Khabiz-e-Khadeem, or perpetual tenant after the aforesaid date of abolition and vesting, is valid and can be recognised; but, this does not make any difference to the principle that the rights of the respective parties have to be determined with reference to the facts and situation obtaining on the date of abolition and vesting. The purchaser in such a case is merely a successor-in-interest, just as a son is a successor- in-interest. The appellate authority shall record separate and clear findings on each of the above issues, after hearing the parties, and dispose of the matter according to law." The District Collector after hearing both sides, passed an order dated 20-1-87 holding that only Ac. 7-07 guntas of land was leased out by the original Makthadar in favour of Namassivayam but not the entire extent of Ac 49-39 guntas, Kannamma executed a perpetual lease deed in respect of Ac. 7-07 guntas of land in 1350 F in favour of Veerayya, Veerayya was granted a tenancy certificate under Sec. 34 of the A P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1950 and in respect of the same area he was also granted a patta certificate under Sec. 38-E. The sale in favour of Sudarshan Reddy by Radhamma and Veerayya under a registered sale deed dated 5-11-69 in respect of Ac. 12-39 guntas of land covered by S. Nos. 349, 350, 351 and 352 was valid since both Radhamma and Veerayya were eligible for occupancy certificates as they were in possession and enjoyment of the land by 20-7-55, the date of vesting Sudarshan Reddy was, therefore, entitled for occupancy certificate as successor-in interest to the extent of Ac, 12-19 guntas The L R of Radhamma was held to be eatitled for occupancy rights in respect of Ac. 36-20 guntas covered by S. Nos. 602 and 603. Kaanamma was entitled for compensation in respect of Ac. 7-07 guntas under Sec. 12 of the Inams Abolition Act as successor-in-interest of the inamdar. This order was challenged in this writ petition by Kannamma who as already stated died during the pendency of the writ petition on 3-10-88 leaving behind two daughters Ranibai and Sugunabai -- petitioners 2 and 3 who came on record as her legal representatives