Hyderabad: The Full Bench of Telangana High Court on Monday made it clear that the purchaser of land from an inamdar is not a successor-in-interest and cannot apply for occupancy rights certificate (ORC).
The Full Bench said that only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to an inamdar who can continue to occupy the inam land and can apply to get ORC.
This means that subsequent purchasers from the inamdar have no valid right of interest to claim ORC on the inam land.
The Full Bench consisting Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice P. Sree Sudha pronounced the verdict on a batch of petition and appeals which were pending since 2002. The petitions had resulted in contrary judgments in the 1990s and later, on applications for grant of ORCs.
In 1993, a division bench in ‘B. Ramender Reddy v The District Collector, Hyderabad’ held that the inamdar had no right to alienate a land already vested in the state, and the purchaser from the inamdar cannot maintain an application for grant of ORC.
In 1995, another division bench in ‘S. Veera Reddy v Chetlapalli Chandraiah and others’, held that such alienation is valid and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to secure ORC.
To resolve the conflicts in the two orders, the High Court constituted a Full Bench which heard submissions by three former advocates-generals — K. Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Prakash Reddy, A. Sudharshan Reddy — Advocate-General B.S Prasad and senior counsels Vedula Venkataramana, P. Sri Raghuram, E. Madanmohan Rao and A. Venkatesh.
The Full Bench held that the law laid down in ‘S. Veera Reddy’ of 1995 was not correct and upheld with the law laid down in ’B .Ramender Reddy’ in 1993 as correct having regard to the 1955 Act.
The Full Bench also overruled the single judge Justice B. Jeevan Reddy`s orders in 1978 in ‘Kodithala Kesavulu v State of AP’, on scope of successor-in-interest.
The judge had said the word successor-in- interest had wide amplitude and need not be confined only legal heirs.
The Full Bench cited the law by Supreme Court in ‘Abdul Gaffur’ in which it said that a ‘successor-in-interest’ was a legal heir and inherited the property left behind by his ancestor and not those who have acquired it by purchase, unless it is specifically defined under the Act including purchaser also.
“Having regard to the scheme of the Inam Abolition Act 1955, a purchaser of land does not become a ‘successor-in-interest’ to the owner of the land. He would acquire title to the land by purchase only if the vendor has a saleable interest.
Until an inamdar secures ORC he cannot become an owner of the land and therefore he cannot pass on the title to the purchaser,’ the Full Bench said on Monday.
The Bench noted that prior to the 1955, Act a land granted as inam could be enjoyed by the inamdar on his own or a kabiz-e-kadim, protected tenant, non- protected tenant or a permanent tenant during his lifetime.
After the Act came into force on 20.07.1955, the inam land vested absolutely in the state, free from all encumbrances. The erstwhile inamdar was relegated to the status of occupant. He could at the most create tenancy by lease or licence for a specified period.
By such agreement, the lease- or license-holder enjoyed all the benefits and privileges as available to the ex-inamdar during the tenancy. An inamdar or kabiz-e-kadim, protected tenant, non-protected tenant or a permanent tenant, whoever was in occupation of inam land and cultivating it as on 01.11.1973 was entitled to occupancy rights certificate.
A right to secure ORC arose only after 01.11.1973.
The bench pointed out that in the overall scheme of the Act, there is no scope to make an outsider a ‘successor-in-interest to succeed to inamdar merely based on purchase of inam land.
…
