Telangana High Court Upholds Jurisdiction Of Revenue Division Officer To Issue Occupancy Rights Certificates In Cases Involving 'Service Inam' Land

The Telangana High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment in a long-standing land dispute, affirming the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to issue Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) even in cases involving 'service inams.'

The order was passed by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in a batch of Writ Appeals challenging the order passed by a Single Judge upholding that an RDO has the jurisdiction to issue an ORC for 'Service Inams'

Conceding with the view taken by the single judge, the Division Bench held:

“Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proviso to Section 4(1) of Inams Act, 1955 was inserted by 1994 Amendment Act and though the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressed the intention of the legislature to exempt the village service Inams and Inams held by religious and charitable institutions from abolition, in the face of this specific proviso introduced by way of the aforementioned proviso, it is not open to the appellant to plead exclusion of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to consider grant of ORC even in respect of Inams held by the institution.”

The case originated in 1967 when the Tahsildar of Hyderabad West denied protected tenant status to Gokari Mallaiah, father of the appellant Gokari Jagadish, on a piece of land in Budvel village. This decision was appealed to the Joint Collector, who in turn referred the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) in 1968. In 1989, the MRO ruled that neither Mallaiah nor his father had ever been in possession of the land and suggested the matter be taken to the Inam Tribunal.

In 1988, Gokari Kamalamma, wife of the late Vittalaiah (son of Chennaiah), filed a claim petition for the ORC. The RDO, after a thorough inquiry, granted the ORC to Kamalamma in 1994, finding that her father-in-law, Chennaiah, was the original occupant and cultivator of the land and that her husband, Vittalaiah, had inherited the right and was in possession of the vesting date of November 1, 1973.

This decision was challenged by Gokari Jagadish and Mir Sadath Ali, who claimed their rights through their grandfather and tenant status, respectively. Their appeal was dismissed by the Joint Collector in 2001, leading them to approach the High Court.

The appellants argued that the RDO lacked jurisdiction as the land was a service inam, traditionally exempt from the Inams Act. They also questioned Kamalamma's claim, asserting their superior right based on lineage and tenancy history.

Kamalamma, however, contended that her family's continuous possession and cultivation since the 1950s made her the rightful occupant, regardless of the land's classification as a service inam. She further pointed out that the 1994 amendment to the Inams Act had expanded the RDO's jurisdiction to include service inams, thus validating the ORC granted to her.

The High Court, after carefully examining the facts and legal provisions, upheld the RDO's decision and dismissed the appeals. The court held that the 1994 amendment to the Inams Act brought service inams within its purview, thus empowering the RDO to issue ORCs in such cases.

“We are of the considered opinion that the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Inams Act, 1955 after amendment has been considered and has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.2 does have the jurisdiction to consider grant of ORC and we see no infirmity in the same," the Court said.

Lastly, the court emphasized that continuous possession and cultivation, are the primary determinants of occupancy rights, outweighing claims based solely on lineage or tenancy records.

“We are of the view that findings by the authorities and reasons recorded by them under a statute or by the appellate authority thereunder do not warrant any interference as there is no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed," it added.

Thus the appeals were dismissed.

Mir Sadath Ali vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors.

WRIT APPEAL Nos.324 and 325 of 2009

Counsel for appellants: E.Madan Mohan Rao, Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.Srinivas

Counsel for respondents: N.Vasudeva Reddy, Senior Counsel

Click Here To Read/Download Order