BHIMAVARAPU VENKAIAH Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOTHAGUDEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Acre 38 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No. 363 and Sy. No. 364 of Singareni village and Mandal is an Inam land governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Late Sri Kongara Narayana was admittedly the inamdar of the subject land. The father of the first petitioner purchased one acre of land in the year 1969 under an unregistered sale deed and he subsequently purchased the remaining 38 guntas of land by way of registered sale deed dated 5-2-1970. The second petitioner herein subsequently purchased the entire land by way of unregistered sale deed dated 18-12-1989, and the records placed before the Court disclose that from the date of the purchase of the lands, the father of the first petitioner and after his demise, the first petitioner had been in continuous possession of the subject land till the first petitioner alienated the subject land in favour of the second petitioner in the year 1989. The first petitioner made the application under the provisions of the Act claiming occupancy rights. His application was considered and rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No. RC. 100/IA/87, dated 31-7-1990. The validity of this Order is assailed in this writ petition. It appears that as directed in the impugned order, the land was resumed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and subsequently the subject land was assigned in favour of the imp leaded respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Singareni Mandal, dated 18-8- 1990. When the petitioners came to know about this development, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P. No. 18671 of 1990 to implead the assignees of the lands and that application was ordered by this Court on 17-10-1990, and the assignees are accordingly impleaded as respondents 3 to 5 to the writ petition and they are also represented by Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Counsel.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the two grounds stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer to reject the application of the first petitioner, namely, that the inamdar did not have saleable right over the inam land and that the father of the first petitioner did not obtain prior permission from the competent authority are totally untenable. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the direction issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume the land by dispossessing the petitioner is wholly without authority of law, and the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not arm the Revenue Divisional Officer with the power to issue such directions.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri M. Surender_Rao, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents 3 to 5 firstly contended that the land having been vested in the State Government by virtue of the provisions of Section 3, the inamdar had lost title in the Inam land to convey the land in favour of the father of the first petitioner and the father of the first petitioner did not acquire any title or interest in the Inam land and therefore the application filed by the first petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer was not maintainable and liable to be rejected in limin. Sri Surender Rao, further contended that against the impugned order, alternative statutory appeal remedy is available and on that count also, the writ petition has to be dismissed.