M VIJAY KUMAR Vs. CHAPALA NARSIMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the order dated 11-06-2007 passed by the Joint collector and Additional District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, the 5th respondent herein. The facts, that are relevant for this writ petition, are as under: the petitioners are pattadars of land in Sy. Nos. 245 and 259 of Farooq Nagar village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, admeasuring Ac. 20. 00 and Ac. 3. 34 guntas, respectively. According to them, these survey numbers are carved out of old Sy. Nos. 206 and 266/2, respectively.

(2.) IT is stated that Chapala Yellaiah, the grand-father of respondents 1 to 4 and 7 (for short 'the contesting respondents'), was recognized as protected tenant, in respect of Ac. 15. 35 guntas, in Sy. No. 245, and that the respondents have been pursuing their remedy under the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') for grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of that Act. They filed an application under Section 7 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Inams act') before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 6th respondent herein, with a request to grant Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) over the land in Sy. Nos. 245 and 249, stating that they are tenants over the said lands. The petitioners resisted the claim by stating inter alia that the land was never an inam, and that the alleged tenancy of Yellaiah was only on certain extent of land, in sy. No. 245. Through his order dated 03-10-1998, the 1st respondent dismissed the application. Respondents filed an appeal before the 5th respondent herein, under Section 24 of the Inams Act. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 6th respondent, with a direction to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the tenancy Act.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that the 5th respondent committed patent illegality by directing the 6th respondent to take action under the Tenancy Act, though the proceedings before him were under the Inams Act. It is also pleaded that the tenancy Act, on the one hand, and the Inams Act, on the other hand, are self-contained Codes, and there is absolutely no justification for converting the proceedings under one Act, into those, under the other enactment.