Telangana High Court Sets Aside Grant Of Occupational Rights Certificate To Legal Reps Of Inamdar, Says RDO Played Fraud In The Matter
The Telangana High Court has allowed a plea challenging the grant of an occupational rights certificate (ORC) to the legal representatives of an Imandar holding that the Revenue Division Authority had ignored ample documents in favour of the petitioner and passed orders in favour of the LRs without issuing notice. It held:"As on the date of enquiry, there were plenty of records and documents...
The Telangana High Court has allowed a plea challenging the grant of an occupational rights certificate (ORC) to the legal representatives of an Imandar holding that the Revenue Division Authority had ignored ample documents in favour of the petitioner and passed orders in favour of the LRs without issuing notice. It held:
"As on the date of enquiry, there were plenty of records and documents in respect of the subject land in favour of third parties and the revision petitioners, who have substantial interest in the subject property. But admittedly no notice was issued to any of such third parties or the revision petitioners prior to passing of the impugned orders for the reasons best known to the authorities."
Justice G. Priyadarshini held that plain scrutiny of the records placed before the Revenue Officials would disclose that the father of the respondents had been issued ryotwari back in 1969, and the question of issuance of ORC as successors of the imandar did not arise.
"Once late E.Achaiah, who is alleged to be the inamdar, was granted ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land i.e., Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.28 of Guttalabegumpet Village in the year 1969 itself, the question of respondent. Nos.3 to 5 claiming occupancy rights certificate being the successors of E. Achaiah inamdar does not arise," it observed.
The petitioner had filed the present petition challenging the others passed by the RDO, confirmed by the Joint Collector.
The petitioners claimed that they had purchased the suit land from the Power of Attorney of the father of the respondents in the year 2000, regularized the land under the Land Regularisation Scheme, made constructions, got an electricity connection, paid taxes and even got issued an Occupancy Right Certificate in their favour.
In 2012, the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of the Imandar of the land and claimed to have been issued an ORC by the revenue authorities.
The respondents contended that their deceased father was the Inam holder of the land and any transaction made in the Inam lands is null and void. Further, they stated that their father never executed any power of attorney and even assuming without accepting that he did, he had passed away in 1995, before the alleged sale transaction. To prove the same, the death certificate of their deceased father was filed. However, curiously the death certificate was issued in the year 2012.
The Court observed that the respondents had been issued the death certificate days before initiating proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and the same would raise suspicion regarding the genuinity of the death certificate.
The Court also noted that the respondents had filed no proof to show that land was agricultural land (since only agricultural land is the subject of the Inams Act) and in fact, to the contrary, the record revealed that the father of the respondents had converted land into plots in 1987.
The Bench noted that evidently, the RDO had ignored the evidence in favour of the petitioners and fraudulently issued an ORC in favour of the petitioners without as much as issuing them a notice.
"Respondent No.1 (RDO) erred in holding that the land is an open land vested with the government, more particularly, when there is ryotwar patta and also plenty of registered sale deeds in respect of subject property much prior to issuance of the impugned orders and occupancy rights certificate. The Mandal Revenue Inspector without conducting the enquiry in proper perspective and without ascertaining the existing details of the alienations in respect of subject land has submitted a false report stating that the land is an open land vested the government."
Both orders passed by the RDO and Joint Collector were set aside.
CRP 3241 of 2023
Counsel for petitioners: Senior Counsel M. Surendra Rao on behalf of D. Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Counsel for respondent: The Advocate General.