CHAMA NARSIMHA REDDY Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction The background facts in all these writ petitions and the civil revision petition are same. The rival claim of the parties - be it petitioners or respondents; is in respect of the same land admeasuring about Acs.55.00 in Survey Nos.210 to 213, 221 to 225 (for the sake of convenience referred to hereinafter as schedule land) situated at Papayyaguda Hamlet of Kuntloor village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District The contentions raised and the documents relied on are almost the same. It is therefore expedient to pass common order. Background facts1

(2.) The schedule land and other extents of land (total extent of 300 acres in same survey numbers) originally belonged to one Vakiti Pulla Reddy, husband of eighth respondent. After enactment of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called, the Land Reforms Act), he filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), who is represented by the respondent No. 15. He was declared surplus landholder and while doing so in accordance with Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act, land which was in possession of Gaddam Babaiah, Gaddam Somaiah and others, the protected tenants, was excluded because under A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter called, the Tenancy Act), the protected tenants are entitled to statutory protection/ownership rights. It appears the protected tenants or their legal heirs filed necessary applications under Section 10 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereafter called, the Inams Abolition Act) and the Inams Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of land admeasuring about Acs.50.00 in favour of the protected tenants. Insofar as this land for which protected tenants are registered as occupants is concerned, there is not much dispute in these proceedings. The dispute, For sake of convenience, the jwrit petition [No.3012 of 2002 is treated as comprehensive one and paities are also referred as per their status therein. however, is regarding another piece of land admeasuring about Acs.55.00. This dispute started some time in 1994 as four groups/categories of persons filed four claims before RCO claiming ORC. The petitioners, respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 filed applications under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act before RDO (second respondent). Respondents 16 to 21 claiming themselves to be ttie legal heirs/successors of another protected tenant joined the dispute at the stage of appeal though they did not file applications before the RDO. The details of these claims are as follows.

(3.) Order of RDO/Inams Tribunal For better appreciation of various contentions raised by the learned counsel for rival parties, it is necessary to briefly notice the sum and substance of the claims, the points considered by RDO and order dated 19.9.1997 passed on the claim petitions. Before the RDO, the petitioners, respondent No.9 (alleged purchaser) and respondent No.8 (inamdar) claimed ORC. After receiving the claim petitions, the RDO issued general notice as well as personal notice in RDrm-II to the claimants as well as persons claiming to be protected tenants or their legal heirs. Respondent No.8 filed petition objecting grant of ORC to petitioners inter alia on the ground that the claim of the petitioners was already rejected on 20.06.1989, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector on 17.12 1994. In her own application, she also claimed to be in personal cultivation and occupation of the schedule land iin support of her claim for ORC. Respondent No.9 based its claim on an alleged agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1982 by late Pulla Reddy in its favour for claiming ORC. The claim petitions were referred to Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) to submit a report thereon. The MRO submitted report vide letter No.D/1989/94, dated 12.08.1994 (hereafter called, the first report for clarity). The MRO reported that the lands are classified as Dastagirdhan (land vested in State), that as per pahani 1973-1974 Chama Pratap Reddy, Punnaiah and Karimsab were in possession of the land and as per the record of rights, the lands are in possession of the inamdar. The MRO also reported that as per the pahani 1993-1994, Chama Pratap Reddy and Chama Narsimha Reddy are shown to be in possession of the schedule lands. Whatever be the reason, the MRO, Hayathnagar, again submitted another report vide letter No.B/53313/96, dated 26.08.1996 (hereafter called, the second report, for clarity) and reported that as per the records, Vakiti Pulla Reddy was inamdar, that as per pahani for the year 1974-1975 Vakiti Pratap Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Mallaiah were shown to be in possession of the lands, but as per his local enquiry, late Gaddam Babaiah was the tenant with longstanding possession till his death in 1983, and that after his death, Babaiah's five sons, Mallesh, Krishna, Sailoo, Somaiah j and Durgaiah were in physical possession of the lands. The MRO also recommended to issue ORC to Gaddam Mallesh and others. The claimants relied on two reports of MRO in support of their claims. Taking into consideration that the first report and the second report of MRO as well as the entire records, RDO came to the following conclusions: (i) the schedule land is Dastagirdhan (inam land); (ii) the eighth respondent i.e., inamdar, did not produce any clinchiing evidence to show that the land was under her personal cultivation on the date of vesting, i.e., 01.11.19732, hence, her claim has to be rejected; (iii) the ninth respondent did not produce any positive evidence to show that possession was delivered to it under the alleged agreement of sale, dated 25.08.1982 and therefore, not entitled for ORC; and (iv) Gaddam Mallesh and others, the legal heirs of Gaddam Babaiah, wtio are in possession and cultivating the schedule land, are entitled to get ORC.