ANNESUNNISA BEGUM Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order made by the Collector, Rangareddy District on 22-3-84 under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') confirming the order made by the Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division, Hyderabad on 4-3-83 under Section 10 of the Act by which the claim of the 3rd respondent as occupant of an innm land admeasuring Acs. 5-00 in Survey No. 52 situated in Maqtha, Mahaboobpet village of Rajendranagar Taluk was recognised under Section 4 of the Act and a certificate accordingly was granted.

(2.) The writ petitioner Annesunnisa Begum was one of the objectors before the Revenue Divisional Officer having got herself impleaded as a party. The disputed land was part of an inam-Zarkharid muqtha owned by the ancestors of Annesunnisa Begum. The 3rd respondent's case before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cbevella, was that his wife late M. Kasthuridevi purchased the land in the year 1965 under a registered sale deed from the muqtadar Mir Kasim Ali. On the death of his wife in 1969 he became the owner of the property and from the date of purchase the land has been in his possession and he was paying the land revenue regularly. In 1973 he applied for a patta to the Tahsildar, Inams, Hyderabad West and also to the Revenue Divisional Officer but no action was taken When revised instructions were issued by the Government to the officers concerned to receive applications in respect of inam lands he once again applied. Respondents 4 to 6 are the brothers of Mir Khasin, the vendor of the land They along with respondent No. 5 objected to the "grant of certificate to the 3rd respondent by the Revenue Divisional Officer contending that the application made by the 3rd respondent was time barfed, and that on 1-11-1973 the date of vesting, the 3rd respondent was not in possession of the land. A further plea taken by them was that the original vendor Khasim Ali was only a shareholder and therefore, he was not competent to sell the shares of other-co-owners. The 7th respondent though initially figured as an objector before the Revenue Divisional Officer, ultimately filed an application before the Officer, stating that he had no objection to the certificate being granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. The writ petitioner came on record as an objector by filing an application for impleading. She is the daughter of one Irdat Ali a co-owner of the inam land and brother of the original vendor Mir Khasim Ali. Her contention was that the land was not an inam land but a patta land and, therefore the application of the 3rd respondent for grant of certificate of occupancy rights under Section 4 was not maintainable.

(3.) On a consideration of the evidence on record the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the land in question was an inam land and the Muntakab granted by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad on 20-5-65 is a conclusive proof regarding the nature of the land. He also held that Mir Osman Alt the brother of the original vendor filed a declaration at the time of the execution of the sale deed on 12-1-1965 admitting that Mir Khasim Ali was absolute and full owner of the land in question (to the extent of Acs. 5-00) which was purchased by R-3's wife and as Khasim Ali had a 5 annas share in the entire Muntakab he was entitled to alienate the land. The Collector, Rangareddy District oq appeal confirmed the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer.