SHAIK SHARFUDDIN Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR R R DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings No. B/3/ 418/94 dt. 8-8-1995 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. J/2994/1987 dt. 11-6-1992 and quash them as being illegal, arbitrary, adjussst and violative of the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') and consequently declare thatat the respondents 3 to 6 are not entitled for occupancy rights certificate to an extent of Ac. 9.20 gts. out of Ac. 11.35 gts. ir S.NO. 168 situated at Nagaram village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he purchased an extent of Ac. 11.35 gts. of dry land in S.No. 168 situated at Nagaram village through an unregistered sale deed dt 16-7-1957 from one Mangali Shankaraiah, Mangali Lakshmaiah and others and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land in question is 'Dastagandham Choutawa Inam' and that the inamdars Shankaraiah and Lakshmaiah and others sold the land in question to the petitioner and that the pahanies prior to 1980 do establish the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpamam granted ryotwari patta to the petitioner in D.D. No. A.8-5472/69 dt. 31-10-1969 and that the copies of the said patta was communicated to the Patwari of Nagaram village and Zamabandi section for the purpose of mutation in the revenue records and that the said patta became final as nobody questioned the same including the respondents 3 to 6.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that he filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of occupancy rights certificate in Form No. 1 as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules made under the Act. Pursuant to his application, the M.R.O. Maheswaram conducted an enquiry and submitted his report through his Proceedings No. A/5070/87 stating that as per the Khasara phani for the year 1955 and pahanies for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 one Mangali Anthaiah was in possession over the land in question on the date of vesting i.e. 20-7-1955 and subsequently, the petitioner purchased the land in question through an unregistereo sale deed and that he was in possession as per the pahanies for the years 1973-74 i.e., on the crutial date on 1-11-1973. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent by conducting suo motu enquiry granted occupancy rights certificate dated 11-6-1992 to the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 3 to 6 have managed the Revenue Official and got their names shown in the pahanies for the years 1979-80 to 1983-84 without his knowledge and consent at the instance of the Patwari of the village and that basing on the illegal entries in the pahanies for the years 1979-80 to 1983-84, the 2nd respondent showed the names of the respondents 3 to 6 in the occupancy rights certificate along with him to an extent of Ac. 2.15 gts. each. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in showing the names of the respondents 3 to 6 in the occupancy rights certificate dated 11-6-1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent contending that the 2nd respondent ought not to have shown the names of the respondents 3 to 6 in the occupancy rights certificate since they were not in occupation of the land in question on the date of vesting of inam in the Government under the provisions of the Act and that the respondents 3 to 6 did not satisfy the requirements under the provisions of the Act to be shown in the occupancy rights certificate and that they did not pay any consideration to the vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an affidavit before the appellate authority enclosing a copy of the unregistered sale deed of the year 1957. The petitioner also contended before the appellate authority that the ryotwari patta granted to him on 31- 10-1969 by the Tahasildar, Ibrahimpatnam became final and in view of the same, the 2nd respondent ought not to have shown the respondents 3 to 6 in the occupancy rights certificate. The 1st respondent without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the material placed by the petitioner and the provisions of the Act, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Against the order of the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.