Rashmi Sharma vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,

I s3e3 l HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, TI{E TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AAID TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL NOS.471.472 AND 475 0F 2013 WA NO:471 oF 2013 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 2810112013 passed in W.P. No. 26578 of 2003 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. B. Laxmi (Died) 2. B.Bikshariathi (Died) Per LRs, Appellant Nos. 7 & 8 3. B.Satvanarayaha, S/o. Late B.Mallaiah Occ BHEL Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 21- 83, Venkata6uram, Post Tirumalghery, Secunderabad-05. 4. B.Sreeramuiu (Died) Per LRs, Appellant Nos. I & 10 5. B.Mallesha, S/o. Late B.Mailaiah occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 21-83, VenkataDuram. Post Tirumalqherv, Secunderabad-05. 6. B.Gopi, S/o. B.Mallaiah Occ Busiiress, R/o. H.No. 21-83, Venkatapuram, Post Tirunialqhery, Secunderabad-05. 7. Smt. B.Kamilamma Wo Bikshapati, Aged 5O years, 8. B.Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Bikshapati, Aged 28 Years, 9. B. Rama Devi, Wo Sriramulu, Aged 38 years, 10.8. Manoj Kumar, S/o Srlramulu, Aged 19 years, (All are Fyo H.No-21- 83 Venkatapuram Post Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad - 15) Aooellant Nos. 7 and 8 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased aoiettant No.2 and Appellant Nos. I and 10 are brought on record as L.Rs of ttid deceased Appelldrit No.4 as per Court Order dateaj 15-07-2014 in WAMP- No' 2257 and 2258 of 2014 respectively ...AppELLANTs/pETrror{€RS AND 1 2 3 4 5 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Joint Coll6ctor,, Rangareddy District at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. The Revenue Divisibnal Officer,, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. The Mandal Revenue Officer,, Ma'lkajigiri MaMal, at Nercdmet, Secunderabad. G.Yadagiri @ Yadaiah, S/o. Bachaiah C/o. N.lndrasena Reddy, Advocate, H.No. 1 -6-70-f/A, Padmacolony, Shankermut, Nallakunta, tlyderabad.

7 6. tv'l.Damodhar Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy C/o.lriluralidhar Rao, Advocate, H.No.6-73, Canara Nagar, Near Uppal Bus Depot, Uppal, Hyderabad -39 7. D.Agam Reddy, S/o- Venkat Reddy C/o. SR Reddy, Advocate, H.No.plot No.159, Kimti Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 8. Smt. Seethamahalaxmi ( Died ) per LRs 9 & 10 9- Smt Muddu P-rasanna, Wo MudduSaketu Rama Rao, Age about 61 years Occ Retired Govt Employee R:/o Raieswari Nilayam plot-No-124 2232971 Bhoodevi Nagar ll Near Telecom Colony Alwal P O Trimulgherry Secunderabad 10. Rajendra Prasad Vedula, S/o Late Vedula Rama Pradad Rao Aged about 60 Years Occ Professor llT Mumbai R/o Raieswari Nilayam plot Ndj24 223291t1 Bhoodevi Nagar ll Near Telecom Coloy Alwal P O Tiimulgherry, Secunderabad ht on record as the LRs of the deceased rder dated 2310212021 in lA No 1 of 2021 ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: I OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 1208 oF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the learned singlejudge made in W.p. No. 26518 of 2OO3 dated 28-0'1-201 3 confirming the order of the Joint Collector made in Case No. F117992196 dated 1511112003, pursuant to the Order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, in so far as it is against the Appellants to the extent of Ac. 15.05 guntas situated in Survey No. 391/A of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by not dispossessing the Petitioners/ Appellants, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal; Counsel for the Appellants: SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI G. DHANANJAI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI MADHU SUDHAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI P. RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 8: SRI B. VENKAT RAMA RAO WA NO: 472OF 2013 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against order dated 2810112013 in W.P.No.27777 of 2009 on the fite of the High Court. Between: Respondent Nos I and '10 are broug Respondent No 8 as per the Court O 1 . B. Bikshapathy (Died) Per LRs 2. B Satyanarayana,, S/o. late_Sri Bajkan Mallaiah, BHEL Employee R/o. H.No 21-83, Venkatapuram Post, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad 500'05

r : R ff:r"i3[,'3['EtJ Ps:'].t-'r'flah' Rr/o' H'No 21-83' Venkatapuram Post' " ii,,,1"'Jr",oi!,:U,'lg:l*t :fl:3,:, R/o. H.No. 21-83, venkatapuram Post, lAffil$"ffi11t[11*+ff roi*r+t''" All are Rl/o H No 2133 Venkatapuram Post Tirumalgherry Secunderabad - 15 ItrB"jli!'S!:"Ffl $i:ffi [":'Ii:1sff*l*5,1i{;iffi tfi#'f"i#d ADoellant No 1 as Per uc ziba ot zol+ ) ...APPELLANTS AND t Government of Andhra Pradesh' Rep by its Principal Secretary to Revenue' lil*fr'm':,llmmqqlrm#'[ffi,f'.*t*j:: , ffgws:L:til$:!?3310 uuniciparcorporation" circre XVr' Arwar' sec Bad ei'f:f:f.l.Ef,B,uli"%'i*,?,11Y,:o?':|""Iy,l''t[fi la"tillllrxtdo-to' l.'[*i[*#p''*rur*g"rr++*Nli, ;1t;; iiffi ,ffi ffiftfl*ffi E5flffi;ffi#$ffi ,,-,# ;:.:it*,m+;?;tx"L*:ffi;{.$i#.}$,''!J:';""H:' fiH;ffi n'tr*+ffiru.;*;;;T"::':::", ;$*,i#*rt-lfliid.":'*;f *."*i}rk,)fr:#,fl,ffi,}; Secunderabad'

49.Sri Surva Vedula S/o Late Sri V V Sub,ba Rao, Aged Aabout 49 Years Occ Servicri R/o B4A Nivee Cosmopolitan Apts Durga Nager Colony Somjiguda Hyderabad 50. Smt Gouri l\ilohini Kasinathuni D/o Late Sri V V Subba Rao, W/o Ravinderanath Kasinathuni Aged about 4t| Years Occ Architect R/o Plol No 53/A Road No 1 1 Film Nagar Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 51. Smt Padma Lakshmi Metta D/o Late Sri V V Subba Rao, Wo Ramesh Kumar Metta aged aboul4T Years Occ Doctor Wo B3D Nivee Cosmopolitan Apts Durga Nagar Colony Somiiguda Hyderabad (Respondent No 44 is brought on record as the LR of the deceased Respondent No 25 in lA No 1 of 2021 Resbondent Nos 45 to 47 are brought on record as the LRS of the deceased Resbondent No 19 in lA No 2 of 2021 and Resbondent Nos 48 to 5'1 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Resbondent No 17 ln lA No 3 of 2021 as per the Court Order dated 23 10212021 in WA M 472 of 2O13 in Respeclively ) 52. Katpally Saradha Devi, W/o Late K.Raja Krishna Reddy Aged about 58 Years Oci House Wife Rl/o H No. 3-4-526139 Flat No 7 Narayanguda Hyderabad Resoondent No 52 is brouoht on record as Lr of deceased Respondent No 30 as p'er court order dated iatollzozz vide lA No 5 of 2021 inwA472of 2013 53. Smt.V.Renuka, Wo Mr.V.R.Lokender Aged about 61 Years,Occ Housewife,R/o.Plot No.48, Vahini Nagar,Sikh Village,Secunderabad. 54. T.Lalitha @ M.Padma. Wo M.Venkateswarulu,D/o T'Veerachary,Occ Housewifi,Aged 54 Years, R/o H.No.2-4-1 1 8 17 S,South Swaroop Na gar, Street No.7 ,Uppal,Telangana ss VvamaiSia Srinivai. S/o Late Viamaiala Satvanarayana Mu{thy Aged about 53 Y6ars ,Occ Employee R/o Flat No. 604, Block 38, SMR Vinay Fountainh€ad' Hydernagar, Hyderabad. so Vi'amiiati Sidnar. S/o Late Viamaiala Satvanarayana Murthy Ag'ed about 47 Years ,Occ Professor Ryo Flat No. 604, Block 38' SMR Vinay Foun{ainhead, Hydernagar, Hyderabad. 57. B6aratulS Ulrr6, Olo. Late Viamajala Satyanarayana ltlurthy Aged about Years ,Occ Teacher Fyo C-902 Jal Vayu Tower,Elchi Guda Lower Tank bund Road Secunderabad, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad Resoondent No 53 and 54 are impteaded Vide lA No.8 of 2018 and lA No' 6 of i621 resoectivelv and Resoonrient Nos 55 to 56 are brolght on record as Lrs of decebsed Rdspondent No 27 Vide lA No.1 of 2022 as per Court Order daled 16.11.2022 in WA No 472 ol 2O13 ...REspoNDEr{rs l.A NO: 1OF 2013(WAMP. }{(t:'1210 0F 2013) Petition under Sectlon 151 CPG praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pl'eas'ed to suspend the order of the learned single judge made in W.P. No'27777 of 2OO9 dated 2801-201 3 confirming the order of the Joint Collector made in Case No.F117992/96 dated 15/1 1/2003, pursuant to the order of Revenue Divisional officer, chevella Division, in so far as it is against the Afpellants to the extent of Ac.15.05 guntas situated in Survey No.391/A of Alwal Village, Malkaigiri Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, by not dispossessing the Petitioners/Appellants, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI G DHANANJAI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SMT. A. DEEPTHI SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondent No. 9: SRI O. MANOHAR REDDY (sc FoR APTRANSCO) Counsel for Respondent Nos. 17, 19,25,27 & 30: SRI B. VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent No. 37: SRI A. SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.43: SRI P. VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for Respondent No. 53: SRI A. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Counsel for Respondent No. 54: SRI K. CHAITANYA WANO:475OF2013 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 28.1.2013 made in WP.No.25790 of 2003 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Smt.Baikani Laxmi w/o late Baikani Mallaiah (Died), 2. B.Bikshapathi (Died) Per LRs 3. B.Satyanarayana, son of late B.Mallaiah,, aged 48 Years, Occupation BHEL Employee, residenl of House No.2'l-83, Venkatapuram, Post Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad 500 05. 4. B.Sreeramulu (Died) Per LRs 5. B.Mallesh, son of late B.Mallaiah,, aged 41 years, Occupation Business, resident of House No.21-83, Venkatapuiam, Poat Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad 500 05. B.Gopi, son of Mallaiah,, aged 40 years, Occupation Business, resident of House No.21-83, Venkatapuram, Post Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad 500 05. B Kamalamma, Wo Bikshapathi Aged 50 Years B Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Bikshapathi Aged 28 Years B Rama Devi, Wo Sriramulu Aged 38 Years 6 7II 1 0. B Manoj Kumar, S/o Sriramulu Aged 19 Years 7 to 10 All are Rl/o H Secunderabad - 15 No 21-83 Venkatapuram Post Tirumalgherry (Appellant Nos 7 and I are brought on Record as Lrs of Deceased Appellant No2

Ap No pellant Nos 9 and '10 are brou 4 as per Court Order Dated 2 glt-o1Rgcord as Lrs of Deceased Appellaflt 110612019 in WAMP Nos 2669 %70 df 2014\ ...AppELLANTS/RESpoHoEtrs a ro il AND 1. Smt-Vedula Sitamahalaxmi (Died) per LRs 2. Smt.M.Prasanna w/o M.SRama Rbo,, aged about 54 years, Occ Doctor, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranoa Reddy District. 3. Smt.T.P.Madhavi Latha w/o T--P.Govin-da Raju, , aged About 53 years, _ 9ccupation Service, r19 Alwat, Malkajgiri ManOai, Ranga Reddy bistri;t. 4. Sri V.Satyanaayana Murthy, s/o V.Kiishnaiah,, Aqed Sbout 73 vears. 9ggqpation . Retired employee, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Rdnga Reddy District- 5. Sri K. Subrahmanyam s/o {.-Sgr.yanarqyana Murthy,, Aged about 70 years, - 9gg .Ved_a Pandit, r/o Alwal Malkajgiri Mandat, Rahga Reddy District. 6. Sri V.V.Subba Rao (Died) Per LRs'- 7. gmt.Shanta ft/og.rthy w/o V.L.Moorthy,, aged about 70 years, Occupation Housewife, r/o Alwal, Malkaiqiri Manilal, Ranqa ReddvDislrict. 8. Smt.Kameswari Rulasi d/o Subba Rao, Rulasl, Bv GPR Subba Rao Rulasi 5/O $plnachalgr Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occupaiion Business, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Sri V.Narendra s/o V.Padmanabham,, aged about 38 years, Occupation Student, r/o Aiwal, Malkaioiri Mandal. Rainqa ReOdv District. 10. Smt.V.Renukasree w/o VV V N Phani Kuriar,, agdC About 49 years, _ _ Occupation Housewife, r/o Aiwat, Maikajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reildy District. 1 1. Smt.V.Vani w/o V S N Prasa!,, aged abbut 53 years, Ocdupation'Housewife, rlo Alwal, Ivlalkajgiri Mandal, Ranqa Reddy District. 12.Sri V V NarayandRao sio V.Ch. V.Swami Naidu,, Aged about 56 years. - Occupation Service, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy DiStrict. 13. Smt.Ch.Rohini w/o Ch.Ramesh,, aged-about 61 iearslOcc Hoirsewife, r/o Alwal, N{alkalgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. - '14.Sri J.Mallaiah s/o Ramaiah,, aged aboirt 46 years, Occupation Service r/o Alwal, Malkaigiri [/andal, Ranga Reddy Distiict. 15. Smt.S.Vilayalakshmi w/o S.Srinivasa Rao,, aqed About 50 vears. Occuoation Housewife, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranqa Reddy Distiict. 16.Sri B.Srinivas s/o. BRama Brahmam,, aged about 49 years, Occupation Service, r/o Aiwal, Maikaioiri Mandal, Ranqa Reddv District. 17. Sri M Murali Krishna s/o M Srinivasa fao,Iaged A6out 6Z years, Occupation Service r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 18. Sri V B Raja_Sekhar s/o V.Radha Krishna Murthy,, Aged about 53 years, _^ Occupation 9q*i9e, r/o Alwal, Malkai;iri Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diitrict. 19. Sri l.Krishna Murthy s/o Ramanadha Sarma,, aged About 57 years, Occ Archaka, r/o Alwal, Malkaioiri Mandal, Ranoa R-eddv Diskict. - 20. Sri Ch.Krishna Murthy s/o -Ch.Hanumbntha-Rao, , aged About 57 years, Occ Archaka, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddi District. 21. Sd P.Srinivasa Rao s/o P.Venkatadri, , aqiii about 46 Years. Occ Railwav Contractor, r/o Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandai, Ranga Reddy Distriat. 22. Sri J.P Gupta s/o H N Gupta,, aged about 74 years, Occupation Retired Service, r/o Aiwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga ReOAy Oistrict. 23.Lt. CoL Asutosh Mookherjee s/o S N Mookherjee,, Aged aboulll years, Occ Army Doctor, r/o Aiwa, Malkajgiri Mandal, Rariga Reddy District. 24. Smt.P.Padmavathi w/o P.Shiva Kumar,, ageO -bout 42- years, Occupation Housewife, r/o Alwal, Maikaioiri Mandal, Rarna Reddv Diskici. 25. Sri D Gangadhar Reddy s/oD.Chatama ReOOTy,, aged'About 60 years, _ - Occupation Agriculture, r/o Aiwal, Malkajgiri M'andil, Ranga Redi,y District. 26. Smt.V.Neerajdkshi w/o V Giridhar,, age<i-about 48 Vears,-Occupaiion Housewife, rio Alwal, Malkaiqiri Mandal, Ranqa Reddv District. ' 27. Sri M Bala Srinivas s/o late M V SubrahmanyEm, , Ag'ed about 50 years, Occupation Unemployed, r/o Alwal, Maikajgiri Mandal, Ranga Redby Diskict. I

28- Smt.R.Java Sree w/o R Nageswara Rao,, aged about 48 years' Occupation * ;;;i;;;;';o-Ailat, l,tai t<a jdi ri Mand al, Ra nsa Reddv. D istrict 2s. $iii'trs;ffiv ilo'rrtJ e-R'r.appa,, ised ;bout 61 -Years' occupation '" #;;;, r.7;AlivJt, rviatrajgiri Ma'ndal, Rlnsa Reddv Dislrict' s0. #'$.P;;;;d" 17" Cn n'a',""iogiijn', ase'd abgut 36 vears' occupation "- il"iness, A Awal' Matt<aigiii Mandal, Ranga Redd-y- Dislrict' sr sili.i c brorir'si i,ii *7" i6 cJnesn,, aged-about 63 vears'-occupation " ' 6.Ji. errol.vee i/o Rtwat, Malkajgiri Maidat, Ranga Reddv District' 32. #'i";i'H;'d;(lriaiS'i,a.v n€odv,, s/o late nimi Rea<lv' qs+.algul.59 "- ,-"rr"- ri." Arrirv Officer, ..lo n'i*ri, trltiairahiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' 33.5;i'ii'B;6;riaii &iinnd, s/o satvbnaravbia, ased About 53 v€ars' ^. . . . "" 6;;;r1il Armv boctor, ilo At*it. Mal(aisiri tr''tanoal' Ransq Reddv. District' 34. s;iJi;;iian; ;iir l;i R"m prit<asn', ase'l-about 42.Ye-a rs' occupation - E;;idi#,;6 A*it, t'rtatt aigiri Mand4, Ranga Reddv District 3s ili'6.d;^rA;id nio'slo-eR6ieswira Rao, ,Ised about 60 vears' occ * il.i"6;l;/" AMit, tvtatt<aigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddv District' 36. $ 6:X;i"ti;; n/l|iina'n "7o dk xiran, , aged about 47 Years' occupation . . * ili;ri;td iftiislionii,-,lo At*i[ l/titr"aigiti Mandal,Ransa Re^ddv District' az. SliiiiiJsi,iilii,'i *lo h.Sni€ Piasad,, Ssed ab-out 50 vears' occupation -' I;;"*if;; ,.'AtwJL, tu"traigiri Mandai, RZnsa Reddv ''ttl'.Si.,, ".r,r,o*=*. 38. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District , - ;6. +ii; h"ev;nu-e-oiriiionli"oni"eitnevelta bivision,, Rans-a Reddv Distdct' ;5: iii; il;;;;I Reri,nLt om"ei, Mal kaj gi ri Ma ndal.,-Ransa Reddv Dis^trict' ,ii. iliAoJrn n"aov i/o Venkat Reddv,,'5ged-about 59 vears do 1-21'93' - ' V#iil;;;m Viiaoe.-post rirumlaias'iri, Secunderabad 500 01 5' +z.si'6?l[l.,iii Ci'6.YZo"iur', s/o Buc[aiih,, Ased about 57.vears' occ - Eus-nes:, tf" u:lo.+-iisli, iRamanthapur, Ranga Reddv District' 43. #V.Dffi;Jaine<lov slo piria n-eoov,', aged a6out 58 vears' o-ccupatign . . '- IijritllttiidrTo lndira iilagai, Harnantn'apri Hvderabad,-iRanga- Redd.v District' aa RXilli,iilE'ili; i/.,irEDi"d ,er LR sio Lata vedula Rama Prasad Rao' : ilil';ffi;t6oleliJGJptot'essor(llT Mumbai ) Rvo Raieswari Nilavam^ Fi"i"r.rilizaezb:Ig7i-ai;od.uirlabar - ll Near Teleconi colov Alwal P'o Trimuloherry Secunderabad 45 s;Li'W;ftt""n"rliiii-wTJlrte sri V V Sub-ba Rao, Ased about 73 Years occ '- Filr;;ia;Fyoltat tto 3,sivi Rpartments somajiguda Hvderabad 46. sri Surva vedula s/o r-rt""sii'v Vlsi,uoj-Rao: Age Aab<iut 49 Years Occ * dHi"cliRv; dif riirlE coJ.opolitan Apts DLirsJ Nasar colonv Somjisuda Hvderabad az Siri-c-Juiinohini Kasinathuni D/o Late Sri V'V Subba-Rao, W/o- -' xlrin-o-oinlinkisiriatnuniA6eo aoout aa Y.qarp Ogc Architect,Ryo Plot No si/A, Road No 1 1,Film Nagar Jubilee Hills' Hyderaba-d +a 5;i'Fa;ma'l-ir"ri.i tttetiiololate sri v-v Subba Rao, wo Ramesh.Kumar : ili;ii;;.d ;b*t 47 YeaE bcc Doctor,R:/o B3D, Nivee Cosmopolitan Apts OurgE l{-agar Colony Somjiguda Hyderabad Resoondent No 44 is brought on record as Resbondent No 1 in lA No 1 of 2021 and'Resoondent Nos 45 to 48 are brought oeceaseb Resoondent No 6 in lA No 2 of 2 23 lO2l2O21 in WA No 475 OF 2013 the LR of the deceased on record as the LRS of the 021 as per the Court Order dated ..RESPONDENTS NO: 1 F 201 P. 1217 0F 2013 Petiti on under Section 151 CPC PraYing that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend fhe order of the learned single judge made in WP No'25790 of 2003

daled 28.1.2013 confirming the order of the joint collector made inCase No-F1179921296dated15.11'2003pursuantlotheorderofRevenueDivisional officer, chevella Division, in so far as it is against the appellants to the extent of Ac.l5.05guntasSituatdinsurveyNo.3gl/AofAlwalVillage,MalkajgiriMandal, Ranga Reddy District by not dispossessing the petitioner/appellants Counsel for the Appellants: SRI E. MAOAN MOHAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI G. DHANANJAI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI B' VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos. 38 to 40: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL Nos.471 472 and47S OF 2OL3 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anit Kumar Jukanti) These three intra court appea_ls are filed against the common order dated 28.OL.2OL3, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.26578 and 25790 of 2OO3 and 27777 of 2OO9. Writ Appeal No.471 of 2013 is filed against the order passed in W.P.No.26578 of 2003, whereas in Writ Appeal No.475 of 2Ol3 the order passed in W.P.No.25790 of 2003 has been challenged. In Writ Appeal No.4Z2 of 2Ol3 the order passed in W.P.No.27777 of 2OO9 is under challenge. 2. Heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G.Dhananjai, counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.Venkata Rama Rao, counsel for respondent No.8 in W.A.No.471 of 2Ol3 and for respondent Nos.17, 19, 25,27 and. 3O in W.A.No.472 of 2OI3 and for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in

,.,: ;. rIc.J & JA(, J W.A.Nos 471, 472 & 475 o{2013 W.A.No.475 of 2013. Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.53 in W.A.No.472 of 2O 13. 3. Since the issue involved in all the three Writ Appeals is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, the facts from W.A.No.472 of 2013 are being referred to. 4.I One Mr. Khaja Jalal Sab was inamdar of lald in respect of land measuring Acs.2l.26 guntas of old Survey No.290. On account of resurvey, the same was assigned as new Survey No.391 measuring Acs. 16.35 guntas at Alwa1 Village classified as pan maqta. Upon his demise, vide mutation proceedings, dated 28.09.1968, the n€unes of legal heirs of Mr. Khaja Jalal Sab viz., Mr. Khaja Mohinuddin and others appear in the revenue records as inamdars/pattedars. Shri Baikani Mallaih, Shri Nimmana Guruva Reddy, Shri Yeruva Chandra Reddy, Shri Dasaram Chandra Reddy and Shri Pathri Pochaiah were the tenalts/possessors of inamdars of the said'land. The 2 I ri il I I

3 rrct &.tA( .t W A Nos 471 472&17-ol20\3 inamdars sold land measuring Acs.10.O0 guntas to one Shri Nimmana Guruva Reddy, Shri Baikani Mallaiah & 3 others vide unregistered sale deed in the year 1970. The tenants/possessors executed a registered agreement of sale in the year 1980 in favour of Shri Yadagiri and Smt. Alladi Saraswathi to an extent of Ac.7.19 guntas which is their share after earmarking an extent olAc.s.OO guntas out of Ac.12.19 guntas in Survey No.391 to the inamdars. 4.2 Thereafter, the inamdars executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Yadaiah and Smt. Alladi Saraswathi to an extent of land of Acl2.L9 guntas in the year 1980. In the year 1981, Shri Baikani Mallaiah and others executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri V.Damodar Reedy to an extent of Ac.9.13 guntas. The GPA holders have executed registered sale deeds in favour of different plot holders after making layouts. 4.3 After death of Shri Baikani Mallaiah, his legal representalives frled an application before the Revenue

[I(}J & JAK, J w A.Nos.zl7l, 472 & 475 ot2013 Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'Primar5r Authority) seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'ORC') in respect of land measuring Acs.16.35 guntas. The RDO has granted ORC to legal representatives of Shri Baikani Maltaiah for an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. The ORC was issued in respect of tand measuring Ac. 18 guntas and Acs.5.2O guntas in favour of Shri Agam Reddy, Shri Yadagiri and Shri I Damodar Reddy respectively. Aggrieved by the orders of RDO, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District i.e., Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order, dated 15.11.2003, in case No.Fll7992/1996 dismissed the appeal and set aside the ORC issued by the RDO and declared that none of the claimants are in possession of the said land and the land vests with the State. The Appellate Authority further directed the MRO to take possession of the land. The appellants have frled Writ Petition Nos.25790 artd 26798 of 2003 challenging the order of the Appellate AuthoritY. -.r--- 4 1

Hq, &.,,^K, J W-A Nos 471, 472 & 475 ot2013 4.4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh came up with a pobcy viz. "The Andhra Pradesh transfer of rights to certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government lands policy 2OO8". The said policy was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated l6.O2.2OOa. A comprehensive set of guidelines were issued vide the G.O. As per the said policy the government intended to transfer small extent of lalds Ja regutari ze the same, for certain specihed categories of occupants of unassigned Govemment lands in the context of longstanding occupation by members of weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle income group people, etc. by way of structures or otherwise. By following the said policy guidelines, the authorities tralsferred and assigned ownership rights through Conveyance Deeds for the said categories of individuals. 4.5 After enquiry through enquiry teams, the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal submitted proposals for transfer of rights in respect of such categories of persons/individuals who were in 5 longstanding occupation of government lands. The said

Hq, & JAI(, J w A Nos.471. ,172 & 475 of2013 proposals were scmtinized and approved by District Level Committee at Chief Commissioner of Land Administration for transfer of rights for smaller extent to the members by fixing a market va-lue to be borne by the alienee (i.e., members of weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle income group people etc.). After remittance of the hxed amount in the treasury for the cost of the land, the sma-ller extents of the / land(s) stood transferred and {egu.laized' in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated t6.o2.2008. 4.6 These Conveyance Deeds and the regularization of smaller extents of land in Survey No.391/A were challenged by the Appellants in W.P.No .27777 of 2OO9. 4.7 For the sake of clarity, the reliefs in three Writ Petitions are extracted below: Writ Petition No.26578 of 2OO3 was filed for the following relief: 6 tl \ !t.

\.J IICJ & JAK. J W.A.Nos-471, 472 & 475 ol20l3 " . . . Hon'ble Court mag be pleased to issue order or direction or wit more particularlg one in ttrc nahtre of Mandamus declaing the orders passed bg the Respondent No.2 herein dated 15.11.2003 in the Case No.F1/7992/96 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the prouisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act and set aside tte same and consequentlg direct the respondents to grant the Occupancg Rights Certifi.cate in fauour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in surueA No.391/A admeasuing 16 acres 35 guntas sihtated at Alual Village, Malkajigii Mandal, Ranga Reddg Distict, in the inlerest of Justice and pass such other order or orders..' W.P.No.25790 of 2OO3 came to be frled for the following "...Hon'ble Court mag be pleo.sed to i,ssue qn oppropriate writ, order or direction, more particularlg one in tLrc nature of Wnt of Mandamus (i) declaing the order of the Respondent No.I in proceedings No.F 1 / 7992/ 1996 dated I 5. 1 1.2003 a"s atbitrary, illegal, uiolatiue of Article 14, 21 and 3OO-A of Constitution of India and ansequentlA set aside the same (ii) declaring th.e order of the respondent No.2 in proceedings No.2/L/429194 dated 30.12.1995 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate in fauour of Respondent Nos.4 to 9 to an ertent of Ac.7.3O guntas and to respondent No.1O to an extent of Ac.O.18 guntas as arbitrary and illegal; (iii) pass such orders..." reliet 7 \

Hq, &.,AK. J w ^ Nos.47l. 472 & 475 ot 20 13 Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.27777 of 2OO9 was Iiled for the following: "...Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring th.e action of respondent No.S representing the 7st respondent in exeatting tlrc Conuegance Deeds as mentioned in the Schedule enclosed to this affidauit in support of Wit Petition, in respect of Sy.No.391/A,-situated at Kanajiguda Village, Alutal of Malkajgii Manda[ Ranga Reddg Distrbt in fauour of respondent Nos. lO to 39 a.s illegal, arbitrary and against the ights guaranteed under Article 3OOA of the Constihttion of India, bg llolding that the said Conuegance Deeds are non-est in Lau and null and uoid and not ualid and not binding on the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders..." 4.a The learned Singte Judge decided all the three Writ Petitions, but, however passed an order holding that the claim for regularization of the land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assignment) dated 16.03.2008 as justifred. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted tllat in W.A.No.472 of 2013, the lr-s before the Appellate Authority was whether the order passed by the 8 \ 1

IICJ & JAK, J w.A.Nos.47L 472 & 475 ot20l3 Primar5r Authority is legal or valid and the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the scope in holding that the land belongs to Govemment and that the order is not a speaking order and no opportunity was granted and should have remanded the matter to the RDO. \r 5.1 Attention of this Court has been invited to the order of Appellate Authority to buttress the contention that the Appellate Authority has erred and travelled beyond the scope. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has observed that the land is fallow (Padava) at one place and as grazing lald at another place. It is further contended that the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 1955") does.not define 'agricultural land" and submitted that in Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lalds Act, 1950, the definition for "agricultural land" under Section 2(c) has to be considered, which is as follows: 9 '() I

10 H(]J &JAK, J w A Nos 471 172&473o12013 "Agicultural land means land uhich is used or is capable of being used for agiculfure or reserued for grouing forests and includes: i. Fallou land...' It is contended that t}te test to determine the land as agricultural land is whether land is used or ca.pable of being used for agriculture. 5.2 It is further contended that the Appellate Authority has held the land to be fallow (padava) and hence, the same is an agricultural land and the appellants are entitled for grant of ORC as they are in occupation, possession and enjo5rment. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by a full Bench of this Court in the case of Executioe Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthg, Mahabubnagar District u. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others r and it has been submitted that the appellants zrre successors in interest and have been in continuous occupation, possession and enjoltnent ald are entitled for grant of ORC. Reliance is also \ ' zozr 1r1 aro s: 1rs11re; t

11 HCJ & JA(' J w.A Nos-471, 472 & 475 ot 2013 v placed on the judgment in the case of Venkata Reddi u' I Commissioner of tand reJorms and urban land ceilings and Appellate Authoritg' Hgderabad and anothet'*iltteitt it was hetd that land which is used or is capable of being used for agriculture is agricultural land and it includes fallow land' 5.3 It is contended that Sections 2(o) and 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act' 1976 defrnes "urban land" and 'vacant land' and for the purposes of Sections 2(o) and 2(q), Agriculture is defined as including horticulture but does not include "raising of grass"' Relying on the defrnitions' al attempt has been made to counter the observation made by the Appellate Authority in the order that "ORC cannot be granted for gtazrnglands'' Further reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner ol Income Tax tt' Krishna Mining Compang3 to buttress the contention that the Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the scope' I 'zool 161nLo zs 'rgzz (roz) tta zoz

L2 IICI & JAK. J W.A.Nos.47l, 472 & 475 of 20 l3 5.4 We hnd no force in the contentions. The Appellate Authority had held that persons falling within the ambit of Sections 4-8 of the Act, 1955 do not have any right to sell the lands and execute sale deeds under the Act, 1955 as they do not have any right, title or interest on the lands. The Appellate Authority, after verilication of records, held that the original pahani for the year 1973-74 was tampered. This Court in a Letters Patent Appeal will not venture on a fact finding mission. The Iearned Single Judge, while upholding the Appellate Authority's order, has declined to interfere under the extraordinar5r jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of tl:e Constitution of India. We subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 5.5 It is subrnitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that there is no flaw in the order passed by the Appellate Authority and that the Tahsildar is not empowered to alienate the land arrd it is only the Collector who is empowered. \ It\is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact of possession of the appellants' father from

HCJ & JAI(. J W A Nos a7l, az2 & 475 ot2013 1951 artd that after his demise, the appellarts are in possession. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Governmenr is justilied in regularizing the possession of purchasers pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, d,ated, 16.02.200g. 6. It is submitted by the leamed counsel for the unoffrcial respondents that the leamed Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority as the order does not suffer from any infrrmity. 6.1 It is submitted that the persons who have purchased the lands will acquire a status superior to that of the tenant and as such they are disentitled to claim ORC. It is submitted that in the judgment rendered by a ful Bench of this court, it has been held that purchaser of rand from inamdar is not a successor in interest and cannot apply for ORC. It is further submitted that while granting ORCs, the authorities have to consider whether the individuals/persons qualify to make an application. \\ -L_ I

F HCJ & JA(. J w.A.Nos 471, 472 & 475 of 20l3 6.2 It is also submitted that the applicant has to be in personal cultivation of the land for grant of ORC and that a distinction has to be rnade between the nature of agricultural land and right over the land. It is submitted that the Act, 1955 intends to grant occupancy rights to 5 categories of persons 74 covered by Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, 1955. Our attention is invited to Sections 2(bl, 2\dl, Z(\, Z(5l',9(1) and 9(3) of the Act, 1955 and contended that thc appellants a-re not entitled for grarrt of ORC and that regularization of plots is valid as per G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated l6.O2.2OOa. It is contended that by virtue of Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1955, all inam lands came to be vested in the State Government. 6.3 Reliance is placed on a judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Tvrt Club Limited rt. Regional Dlrector, State Emplogees Insurance Corporation+ and contended that meaning to the words in the statute should be understood in the context and objects of the to*/tt.l.i"t, \ I

15 IICJ & JAK, J w A Nos 471- 472 & 475 ot 20l3 -.\ legislature must be taken into consideration' ['earned counsel contended that as per the full Bench Judgment of this Court, purchasers are not entitled for grant of ORC and appellants are not successors in interest. 6.4 It is submitted that respondents No.1O to 39 hlve purchased plots of varying sizes from the GPA holders i'e', Shri Yadaiah and Shri Damodar Reddy and from certain other persons in the years 1994-2002 and it is these unofhcial respondents whose plots have been regularized vide policy viz' 'The Andhra Pradesh transfer of rights to certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government lands policy 2OOa" notifred vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass' POT) Department, dated 16.02.2008. 6.5 It is also contended that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Ra,nrtender Reddg (1 supra) has held that the persons who are not in actual possession and enjoyment (by way of cultivation) as on the date i.e., 01.11.1973 are not entitled for ORC-and the same has been upheld by a full Bench I I

7 16 IICJ & JAK. J w A Nos.47l- 472 & 475 ot 20l3 of this Court. Further submitted that there is no possibility of I agriculture being carried out in the said land iSZS-z+ as residential structures have come up. tn the year 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.53 has contended that the appellants/purchasers have taken dual stand of being purchasers and tenants, which is not tenable. It was also contended that the pahani for the year 1973-74 has been tampered and the grant of ORC to the extent of Ac.l.3O guntas is not valid and the Appellate Authority has rightly reversed the order of RDO which was upheld by the learned Single Judge and the order of the leamed Single Judge needs no interference. It is further contended that when the land is said to be fallow/padava, it means that the land is not put to personal cultivation as on 01.11.1973.It is submitted that as on the date of 01.11.1973, the individuals/persons have to be in possession and should have been personally cultivating the said land for grant of ORC. ( I il

17 IIC.' & JAK, J W A.Nos 471, ,172 & 475 ot20l3 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8..1 Inams in the Telalgana Area have been abolished and vested in the State as per the Act, 1955 w'e'f' 20'07'1955' but the relevant date for the determination of rights of the occupants, who are in personal cultivation on the Inam lands' is O 1 . 1 l.lg73. It is on this date, either the inamdar or the categories of persons under the Act, 1955, if are in possession of land, would be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights' 8.2 The learned Single Judge has not upset the Appellate Auttrority's frnding that the original pahani for the year 1973- 74 has been tampered. We have perused the order of Appellate Authority. The categorical hnding has been arrived at by the said authority only after verifying the original pahani of the year 1973-74. The authority has further held that the cultivation extent has been added subsequently with slight change of ink and that the script is d'ifferent from the rest of the pages. The linding that the RDO has not verihed the i lr I i & I

IIqJ & JAK, J W.A Nos.47l. 472 & 475 of 20l3 2 Sethwar and relevant pahani for the year l9Z3-24 is crucial. The findings of the Appellate Authority have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that there is no valid ground for disturbing the findings, on the said factual aspect of tampering of revenue record. 8.3 We have perused the policy vrz. "The Andhra Pradesh transfer of rights to certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government lands policy 2OO8". The said policy was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated 16.02.2008. A comprehensive set of guidelines were issued vide the G.O. As per the said policy the Government intended to transfer small extents of land(s) and regularize, for certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government lancis in the context of longstanding occupation by members of weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle income group people, etc. by way of structures or otherwise. The Conveyance Deeds and the registration of the sma-ll extents of land(s) to the respondents have been carried 18 I /: a)

19 I{CJ &.'AK. J W.A.Nos 471, 472 & 4 75 oI20 l:] out following the guidelines issued by the Government. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Government is justihed in regularizing the possession of purchasers pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Ass. POT) Department, dated 16.02.2008 and has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We see no grounds for interference of the order of the learned Single Judge. 8.4 A reading of the provisions of Act, 1955, Sections 4 to 8 indicates the persons who are entitled for grant of ORC. For the purpose of grant of ORC, relevant date is 01.11.1973 as held by a catena of decisions of this Court and conlirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The indispensible requirement namely the actual possession of land and personal cultivation is a sine quo non for grant of ORC as on 01.11.1973 This requirement has to be met by verification of the relevant records by the authority and also taking into consideration the documentary evidence relied upon by the applicants/claimants. In the present case, the finding by the I ) L Appellate Authority is that the pahani for the year 1973-74 rs 1

kc, &.IAri, J W A Nor.47! 172 &, 775 ot 2()l1 tampered, which is crucial. The Appellate Authority has rightly negated the claims. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of the Appeliate Authority. The findings of the fact record by the Appellate Authority as well as learned Single Judge are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The findings do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in these appeals. 9. This Court does not perceive any merit in these appeals and accordingly, the szune are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if aly in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed. SD/-K.SAILE HI DEPUTY REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE (For Her Lordships' Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI (For Her Lordships' Kind Perusal) To, 1. 11 LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi- 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri G Dhananjai Advocate [OPUC] I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 MBC Two One One One One One One One One One Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUTI CC to Sri Madhu Sudhan Reddy Advocate [OPUCI CC to Sri P Rajagopal Reddy Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri B Venkat Rama Rao Advocate IOPUC] CC to Smt. A. Deepthi, Advocate(OPUC) CC to Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, AdvocatqOPUC) CC to Sri A.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) CC to Sri K. Chaitanya, Advocate(OPUC) CC to Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) CC to Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate(OPUC) CD Copies -_\,},..- :ar==-+i--+.qd-.,-,.:

WITHOUT COSTS 1-t HIGH GOURT l DATED: 1211212023 !]rt 1 '' 1 COMMON JUDGMENT wA NOS.471,472 AND 475 0F 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS 1ii [tt ?m at 1 +t e STAI€' Q o .b t DEsper (ov I @Xr \c'