In a landmark decision, the Telangana High Court upheld the jurisdiction of Revenue Division Officer to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates in ‘Service Inam’ land cases.
The Tahsildar of Hyderabad West denied protected tenant status to Gokari Mallaiah, father of the appellant Gokari Jagadish, and when the case was taken to 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.
Gokari Kamalamma, wife of the late Vittalaiah ( son of Chennaiah ), filed a claim petition for the ORC. The RDO granted the ORC to Kamalamma, 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
The said 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 which led them to approach the High Court.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the RDO lacked jurisdiction as the land was a service inam, traditionally exempt from the Inams Act and also questioned Kamalamma’s claim, asserting their superior right based on lineage and tenancy history.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti held that “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.”
“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 noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
