Purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor‐in‐interest and cannot apply for ORC and only a legal heir is a successor‐in‐interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land can apply to get ORC. Gist of full Bench Judgment of Telangana High Court Dt: 21-11-2022

 Case Details: The Executive officer group of Temples Vs The Joint Collector Mahaboobnagar in W.P.No 913 of 2002 & batch (Click here for full Judgment)   

Date of Judgment: 21‐11‐2022. 

Facts:    In W.P.No.913 of 2002, petitioner assailed the order dated 27.O7.2OO1 in Appeal No.F2lll2OOO confirming the order dated 22.12.1999 of the original authority rejecting the claim of petitioner to grant Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Before learned single Judge, two decisions of two Division Benches were cited, namely B.Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others (1993 (2) An.wR 84 (DB)) and S.Veera Reddy and another vs. Chettapalli Chandraiah and others. (1994 SCC Online AP 510) On consideration of these two decisions, learned Judge opined that there is conflict of opinion in these two decisions on the entitlement of purchaser of inam land from Inamdar to apply for ORC under the Act. Learned Judge therefore opined that the conflict should be resolved by a Bench of two Judges or more. The relevant paragraphs of the Order dated 24,03,2014 in W.P.No.913 of 2002 read as under: 

“From the brief summary of respective submissions what emanates is that this Court in the decisions reported in Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh (1978 (2) An.W.R. page 31) S.Veera Reddy and another v. Chetlapalli Chandraiah and others [1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB)], S.Narasimha and others v. Joint Collector‐ll, Ranga Reddy and another (2006 (2) ALD 621) and Bhimavarapu Venkaiah and another v. R.D.O., Kothagudem and others [1999 (4) ALD 219] has taken the view that the Purchaser of land from an Inamdar after the abolition of Inams can also maintain an application for grant of ORC but in the decisions reported in B.Ramender Reddy' and others vs. District Collector, Hyderabad and others (1993 (2) An.W.R.84 (DB)), Chama Narsimha Reddy and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district at Hyderabad and others [2007(3) ALT 265], this Court has taken a contrary view that once the Inam is abolished, all the pre‐ existing rights are abolished and a purchaser from the Inamdar cannot maintain an application for grant of O.R.C. 

In my opinion, the views expressed by the learned Judges in B.Ramender Reddy's case (supra) and S.Veera Reddy's case (supra) are conflicting with each other on the entitlement of a purchaser from an Inamdar to apply for ORC under the Act, Ramender Reddy's case is decided by their Lordships Mr. Page | 16 Justice V.Sivaraman Nair and Ms.Justice S.V.Maruthi, S.Veera Reddy's case (supra) was decided by their Lordships Mr.Justice S.S.M.Quadri (as he then was) and Ms.Justice S.V.Maruthi. One of the learned Judges Justice S.V.Maruti, is a party to both these decisions. I am of the opinion that it is desirable that the conflict be resolved by an authoritative pronouncement of a Bench of two Judges or more." 

When the matters were placed before a Division Bench, the Division Bench requested Hon'ble The Chief Justice to place the matters before a Full Bench. Accordingly, the Honble Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench. That is how the matters have come up before this Full Bench to resolve the conflict of opinion. 

While in Ramender Reddy, the Division Bench held that the Inamdar has no right to alienate a land already vested in the State, in S.Veera Reddy, another Division Bench held that such alienation is valid and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to secure ORC. This is the conflict of opinion that requires consideration and resolution. 

The issue for consideration is whether a purchaser of inam land from Inamdar after 20.07.1955 would acquire right to claim ORC? Incidental issue for consideration would be whether the purchaser of inam land qualifies as a (‘successor‐in‐lnterest’ to Inamdar? 

Held: In the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, the State Legislature brought out separate Inams Abolition Act called "the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956" applicable to Andhra area. The salient feature of this Act is land never vested in the State and on abolition of inams the State envisaged granting Ryotwari Patta to Inamdar. The Act was amended by Act 20 of 1975. By this amendment, Section 10B is added.  (Sec.10B. conferment of ryotwari pattaa on transferees of unenfranchised Inams; where, before commencement of the Andhra Pradesh {Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) amendment Act, 1975 an Inamdar, other than an institution, of any unenfranchised inam has sold or otherwise transferred his interest in the inam and held by him, the transferee, who has acquired the said interest in good faith and for, valuable consideration, or his successor in title, who is in possession of such land on the date of such  commencement, shall be, deemed to be the Inamdar for the purpose of this Act) 

Section 10B recognizes the alienation made by Inamdar before commencement of 1975 Amendment Act and holds the transferee as deemed to be Inamdar. 

The legislative intent is very clear. While in 'The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956' applicable to Andhra area, the legislature leans in favour of recognizing alienee as also an Inamdar in Andhra Area Page | 17 of then combined State, the same legislature has chosen not to envisage sale of inam land by Inamdar before ORC is granted and does not recognize alienee to succeed to Inamdar in Telangana area governed by the 1955 Act. 

If the State legislature had intended to extend the same benefit in Telangana area, it could have made similar provision in the 1955 Act. It is thus safe to assume that in the scheme of the Act, a ‘successor‐in  ‐lnterest' means only a legal heir and not a purchaser of inam land and such purchaser is not entitled to apply for ORC, The decision of learned single Judge in Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1978 (2) An.W.R. page 31) is thus overruled.

 In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under: 

(1) The 1aw laid down in S.Veera Reddy and another v. Chetlapalli Chandraiah and others [1995 (2) ALT 172 (DB)] is not correct having regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act. We agree with the law laid down in B.Ramender Reddy and others vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others (1993 (2) An.wR 84 (DB)) as correct and overrule the decision in S.Veera Reddy.   

(2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor‐in‐interest and cannot apply for ORC.   

(3) ' Only a legal heir is a successor‐in‐interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land can apply to get ORC.

 (4) The decision in Kodithala Keshavulu (supra) does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. For that matter, all the decisions of learned single Judges and the Division Benches which have taken contrary view stands overruled.

 (5) We make it clear that an inamdar, Kabiz‐e‐Kadam permanent tenant, protected tenant and non‐protected tenant can acquire saleable interest only after they obtain ORC and cannot create third party rights and/or interest in any other person before obtaining ORC. 

As the issue for consideration is to resolve the conflict of opinion in the two decisions of two Division Benches in B.Ramender Reddy and S.Veera Reddy on the entitlement of a purchaser from an Inamdar to apply for ORC under the 1955 Act after 20.07.1955 and before ORC was granted to Inamdar, the other issues raised in the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals including scope and application of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act do not fall for consideration and, therefore, no opinion is expressed. All other issues urged in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are left open to .be urged in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions as the case may be. Page | 18 The reference is answered accordingly. The registry is directed to place the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions before appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the Honble Chief Justice.