Kummari Pentamma vs State of Telangana

K.Sarath, J

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 27.12.2008 in case No.F1/3245/2007 passed by the respondent No.1 and also the orders dated 18.11.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the subject property in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely Late Parusharamulu and one Late Kammari Anjaiah were in possession of land to an extent of Ac.3.31 guntas in Sy.No.168 and to an extent of Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy.No.182, total to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, situated at Pendyal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as subject lands) and their names were also recorded in the revenue records as Inamdars and Possessors with equal shares. The petitioner is not having male siblings and the petitioner and her husband were looked after during life time of her father. The father of the petitioner conveyed his share in the subject property in favour of the husband of the petitioner as Illitum-son-in-law through gift deed dated 14.05.1980. While it being so, the respondent Nos.3 to 7, claiming themselves as the successors of Late Kammari Anjaiah, who is having half share in the property, made application to the respondent No.2 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) in respect of the entire extent of property, without there being any legal entitlement. Thereupon, the respondent No.2, without issuing any notice to the successors of father of the petitioner, passed impugned Order dated 18.11.2006 in File No.J/3945/05 granting ORC in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 including share of father of the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.1/Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in case No.F1/3245/2007 and the same was dismissed on 27.12.2008. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that when once the original authority has come to conclusion that K.Anjaiah and Parusharamulu were having equal rights in the subject property, the original authority have to grant ORC in favour of the legal heirs of K.Anjaiah only to an extent of half of the subject land. Even if the registered gift deed is invalid, the legal heirs of late Parusharamulu will not lose their right to obtain ORC which is statutory right and the A.P (TA) Abolition of Inams Act clearly defines that an Inamdar means the Pattadar and his successors in interest. Since the petitioner and her sisters are the successors of late Parusharamulu, they are entitled to half share in the subject property and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Order.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and her legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 5.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgment:

Vedantam Srinivas Chary Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh2005 (2) ALD 581.

The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the subject land was a grant (gift) made by the then Nizam of Hyderabad State in favour of one Sri Brahmaiah etc., and late Kammari Anjaiah and Late Parusharamulu, who were found to be in possession and occupation of the said land on crucial date i.e. on 01.11.1973 as Inamdars and Possessors. The unofficial respondents are the legal heirs and share holders of the Inamdars and possessors of the land, as such they have applied for grant of ORC before the respondent No.2.

The leaned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that the respondent No.2 on perusal of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal came to a finding that the respondent Nos.3 to 7 are the legal heirs of the possessors of the land as on crucial date i.e. 01.11.1973 and granted ORC in their favour. Since father of the petitioner died, the unofficial respondents performed the marriage of the petitioner and her sisters and further provided money at the time of their marriages. In spite of issuance of public notice, the petitioner and her sisters did not come forward at the time of pronouncement of orders for granting ORC and the respondent No.1 has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the name of father of the petitioner i.e. Late Parusharamulu and the name of Late Kammari Anjaiah were recorded as Inamdars and Possessors of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.21 Guntas and Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy.Nos.168 and 182 respectively situated at Pendyal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy. It is not a father of the petitioner i.e. Parushramulu and Kammari Anjaiah having equal shares in the said land as Inamdars and Possessors as per the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The parents of the petitioner having three daughters without any male issues and in view of the same, the father of the petitioner during his life time conveyed the property in favour of the husband of the petitioner vide gift deed dated 14.05.1980. After death of father of the petitioner and Late Kammari Anjaiah, the respondent Nos.3 to 7, claiming to be the legal heirs of Late Kammari Anjaiah, made application to the respondent No.2 for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC) in respect of the entire suit schedule property.

The petitioner, after came to know about the granting the ORC in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 on 18.11.2006 in file No.J/3945/05 by the respondent No.2, filed appeal before the respondent No.1 in case No.F1/3245/2007 and the same was dismissed through the impugned order dated 27.12.2008 holding that the Inamdars have no right to execute the gift deeds in favour of third parties and further held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly granted Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7.

There is no dispute with regard to the possession of the father of the petitioner and Late Kammari Anjaiah in respect of the suit schedule property as on crucial date i.e. 01.11.1973. The respondent No.2, only basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, wherein it was stated that father of the petitioner not having male issues and the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 being the legal heirs of late Kammari Anjaiah and late Parushramulu, granted ORC in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7. The appellate authority i.e. the respondent No.1, without taking account of the rights of the petitioner herein, being legal heir of the deceased-Parshuramulu, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner and her sisters are entitled to get share of their father in the suit schedule property. The appeal filed by the petitioner herein was rejected on technical grounds that the Inamdar executed registered Gift deed, without taking account of the grounds raised by the petitoner herein.

The unofficial respondents in their counter have not disputed about the relationship between Late Parusharamulu and the petitioner, but stated that after death of the father of the petitioner, the unofficial respondents have performed the marriage of the petitioner and her sisters. During his life time, father of the petitioner has gifted his share of property in favour of the husband of the petitoner, therefore the question of performing marriage of the petitioner by the unofficial respondents does not arise. Moreover, as per Hindu Law, sons and daughters are entitled to get share in the property of their parents. In the instant case, the ORC granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 7 by declaring that they are legal heirs of late Parushramulu on the ground that late Parushramulu has no male issues. The respondent No.2 declaring the respondent Nos.3 to 7 are the legal heir of Late Parushramulu is contrary to law. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 without verifying the proper records and without following the law merely basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar, granted ORC for the suit schedule land in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 7, which is liable to be set aside.

The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Vedantam Srinivas Chary Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment are as follows:

“38. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 deals with registration of non-protected tenant as occupant, which reads as hereunder:

"Rule 6. Registration of non-protected tenant as occupant:--

(1) On receipt of an application under Rule 5 or in suo motu enquiry, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form II to every [person claiming interest or having interest in the land specified in such notice, fixing a date on which an enquiry is to be held and calling for objections, if any, within a period of fifteen days from the date of publication of such notice.

(2) On the date fixed under Sub-rule (1) or any subsequent date to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the Collector shall give to the parties interested, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce such evidence, both oral and documentary, as may be necessary and shall, also examine such other person or persons and documents, if any, as he considers necessary to ascertain in the area of the land held by the applicant and pass an order under Section 10 and determine—

(a) the extent of inam land to which the Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim etc., is entitled to be regarded as an occupant;

(b) the amount of premium payable by the occupant to the Government, for the land to be registered and the number of installments in which the premium is payable; and

(c) the extent of the inam land that has to be taken over from the [Inamdar kabiz-e-kadim etc., in excess of the limits specified in the Act.

["(3) (a) a certificate of registration of Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim etc., as an occupant of the extent determined under Clause (a) of the Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 shall be issued in Form III;

(b) A certificate of registration of occupants in Form III, in respect of Inams attached to Charitable and Religious Institutions (Wakfs, Temples, Charitable and Religious Endowments etc.) shall be issued only in favour of such institutions and not in favour of individuals managing them performing service in them."

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

On a careful reading of the different provisions of the Act of 1955 and also Rules of 1975 referred to supra, though the remedy by way of appeal is provided for inasmuch as this is an action made in contravention of the principles of natural justice, for non-observance of the said principles of natural justice, the said order made by the Competent Authority is bad in law.

xxxxxx

The scheme of the Act of 1955 and also the different provisions in general, Section 10 of the Act of 1955 in particular read with Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1975 would make it clear that reasonable opportunity to be given to the persons having claims or the persons interested in raising objections in relation thereto and then adjudicate such claims in accordance with law”.

In the instant case also, the official respondents, without any notice to the petitioner or her family Members and without following the procedure as contemplated under Rules and granted ORC in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be set aside.

In view of the above finding, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Proc.No.J/3945/2005 dated 18.11.2006, granting ORC in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 and consequential order passed by the respondent No.1 in No.F1/3245/2007 dated 27.12.2008 and remanding the matter, with a direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh enquiry as per A.P (TA) Abolition of Inamdars Act, 1955 by giving opportunity to the petitioners and the unofficial respondents including personal hearing and pass appropriate orders, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.