A NAGAIAH Vs. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a checkered history. It started with the issuance of occupancy certificates to the petitioners on 1-7-1977 under the A.P. (Teiangana Area) inams Abolition Act (For short the Act). The petitioners claimed to be the occupants before the inams were abolished on 16-7-1955 of land situate in Survey Nos. 136, 137, 138, 151. 153, 154, 155, 157 and 129 admeasuring in all Ac. 16-31 guntas in Alwa! village. They applied for occupancy certificates u/s 7 of the Act. The matter has been enquired into by the Revenue Divisional Officer u/s. 10 of the Act. Notices were given to (he inamdars, patwari and ail other concerned for purpose of enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Eventually on 1-7-1977 occupancy certificate was issued in Form No. III. The Petitioners paid the premium of Rs 2,022/- fixed. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the entire extent of land pursuant to the occupancy certificate granted.

(2.) There is no dispute regarding the occupancy certificate given to the petitioners in respect of different extents of land except the one in S.No. 129 of an extent of Ac. 4-10 guntas. One Bansilal Malani, 4th respondent herein, filed an appeal u/s. 24 of the Act before the District Collector on 24-8-1979 contending that no proper enquiry had been conducted bsfore the issue of the certificate in relation to S.No. 129. Bansilal Malani claimed that he had purchased this land from respondents 5 and 6 in the year 1966 and that he had been in possession of the same ever since the date of purchase. To clear the record, it may be mentioned that Bansilal Malani did not claim to have obtained sale deed in his favour from respondents 5 and 6. It was claimed that there was an agreement of sale, that full consideration was paid and that he was put in possession by respondents 5 and 6. Bansilal Malani therefore claimed that he is a person directly interested in the land and the Revenue Divisional Officer should have issued a notice to him while the matter was under enquiry for the issuance of occupancy certificate. It was claimed that there was failure on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to put Bansilal Malani on notice. It was in those circumstances that Bansilal Malani filed an appeal before the District Collector on 24-8-1979 seeking orders setting aside the occupancy certificate granted in favour of the petitioners in regard S.No. 129.

(3.) During the course of the appeal respondents 5 and 6 herein filed affidavits before the District Collector claiming that the land in question was purchased by them in the year 1960 and they confirmed the sale thereof to respondent No. 4 in the year 1966. It is further stated in the affidavits that there was no registered sale deed executed, but respondents 5 and 6 had put respondent No. 4 in possession of the land. It is also stated in the affidavits that respondents 5 and 6 continued to look after the land even after it was allegedly sold to 4th respondent as his agents.