ABDUL QAIYUM Vs. S SATHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954. The same was brought into force w.e.f. 20-7-1955, but not all the provisions. There was a lot of controversy with regard to the date of vesting. Now the dispute is resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy vs. District Collector (1993 (2) An.W.R. 84). In the said decision, it is held that while for abolition of Inams and vesting of the same in the State, the date reckoned is 20-7-1955, but for determination of occupancy rights, the date shall be reckoned as 1-11-1973.

(2.) The 1st respondent filed an application for occupancy rights on the ground that he is an inamdar in possession of the lands covered by S. Nos. 183, 184, 186 and 187 of Kondapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The 6th respondent who is the primary authority rendered judgment in favour of the petitioner upholding his contention that he was entitled for conferment of occupancy rights. The date reckoned by him for the purpose of determination of the said rights was 1-11-1973. The respondents 1 to 4 appealed to the 5th respondent under Section 24 of the said Act and the 5th respondent has reckoned the date of vesting as 20-7-1955 even for the purpose of conferment of occupancy rights. In view of the above Bench Judgment of this court, it has to be concluded that the date of vesting was 1-11-1973 for the purpose of determination of occupancy rights. As such, that part of the order of the 5th respondent with regard to date of vesting is set aside. In so far as the conferment of occupancy rights is concerned, the respondents 1 to 4 do not claim any rights in the lands covered by S. Nos. 186 and 187 and the petitioners succeed in so far as the conferment of occupancy rights in the lands covered by S. Nos. 186 and 187. But, with regard to the lands in S. Nos. 183 and 184, the respondents 1 to 4 were already declared as the pattadars, but that was not under the Inams Abolition Act, but under the Record of Rights Act. The consideration of recording a person as pattadar under the Record of Rights Act may be different from that of conferring occupancy rights underthe I nams Abolition Act. Yet, for recording a person as a pattadar, necessarily, longstanding possession will be taken into consideration and that is a factor which weighed with the 5th respondent in upholding the claims of the respondents 1 to 4 for occupancy rights in so far as S. Nos. 183 and 184 are concerned. There are no grounds to interfere with the saidfinding.

(3.) In the result, it is held that while the petitioner is entitled for occupancy rights over the lands covered by S. Nos. 186 and 187 of Kondapur Village, the respondents 1 to 4 are entitled for occupancy rights over the lands covered by S.Nos. 183 and 184 of Kondapur village.