S NARASIMHA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR II RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision preferred under Section 28 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector-n, Ranga Reddy District in an appeal bearing reference No.F1/8680/2003. By the order impugned the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners under Section 24 of the Act (directed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy dated 10-10-2003 in proceedings bearing reference No.J/1828/2002). The background facts :

(2.) The 2nd respondent herein applied on 10-7-2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short "ORC") in respect of an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196 of Dommara Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur conducted an enquiry into the claim and submitted a preliminary report on 15-7-2002. The report recorded that the land in Sy.No.196 admeasuring Ac.3.05 guntas is classified as dry land and as Dasthgardhan Inam; that Sarvasri Loka Shivaiah, Sathaiah and Laxmaiah were the inamdars; Vadla Veera Chary and the 2nd respondent herein are in possession of the land in equal shares having purchased the same from the original inamdars through an unregistered sale deed dated 12-1-1974; and that Veera Chart and the 2nd respondent herein were in possession as on 1-11-1973 and are continuously in possession as on date (of the report of the M.R.O). On the above factual conclusions, the M.R.O. recommended grant of ORC in favour of the 2nd respondent over an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas in the survey number. After the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer took up the 2nd respondent's application for regular enquiry and issued the relevant notices as well as a general notification, which was issued on 26-7-2002 inviting claims-objections from interested parties. On 31-7-2002 the revision petitioners filed their objections to the 2nd respondent's application. The revision petitioners claimed to have purchased an extent of Ac.3.05 guntas from the 2nd respondent and Vadla Krishna son of Veera Chari; resisted the 2nd respondent's claim for an ORC and sought the ORC for themselves. The R.D.O. proceeded to consider the claims and counter-claims of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners and passed the order dated 10-10-2003.

(3.) According to the 2nd respondent herein, he purchased an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas in Sy.No.196 from the inamdars, was in possession of the said extent as on 1-11-1973 and continued to be in possession; his name is recorded as being in possession of the said extent of land in the pahanis for the year 1973-74 as well as in the latest pahanis. He denied the alleged sale in favour of the revision petitioners and pleaded that the revision petitioners were never in possession of any land in Sy.No.196. At the hearing before the R.D.O on behalf of the 2nd respondent it was also urged that he and Bala Krishna Chart had filed O.S. No.170 of 2003 on the file of the n Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction and obtained an exparte injunction in I.A. No.379 of 2003. The ex parte injunction order was later made absolute and the plaintiffs were also granted police aid.