HYDERABAD: A full bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justices P Naveen Rao and P Sree Sudha, upheld legislation established in the B Ramender Reddy case. A division bench in the Ramender Reddy case had determined that the Inamdar has no right to alienate a land already vested in the State.
But another division bench in the S Veera Reddy case determined that the alienation is legitimate and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to obtain the Original Right Certificate (ORC). According to the full bench, a person who buys land from an Inamdar is not their successor-in-interest and cannot submit an ORC application. Only a legal heir who is Inamdar’s successor-in-interest and is permitted to possess the Inam land may submit an application for ORC.
After getting directives from the Chief Justice, the registrar is ordered to present the writ appeals and writ petitions before the proper bench.
Advocate General BS Prasad stated that the scheme of the 1955 Act was to abolish the Inams and to vest the land in the State, and the same has been vested in the State when the Act was enacted, but since all provisions of the Act did not come into force in July 1955, though the title vested in the State with the abolition of Inams, the possession and other interest remained with the Inamdars and other interested persons even afterwards.
No contradiction
Only when the remaining provisions came into force on November 1, 1973, the persons as specified in the Act became eligible to apply for ORC. Therefore, no other person who does not fit the definition of Inamdar, Kabiz-e-Khadim, protected tenant, permanent or non-protected tenant, can apply or get ORC on an inquiry conducted in accordance with Section 10. This is because the Act expressly grants only specified classes of people the authority to apply for ORC.
Senior counsel K Ramakrishna Reddy, who represented one of the petitioners, claimed that the Division Bench in the B. Ramendar Reddy case had not taken into account the applicability of the saving clauses in Sections 11 and 33. It has, nevertheless, acknowledged the impact of rights recognised by the Act. He contended that there is no contradiction between the two judgements regarding the eligibility of the purchaser from Inamdar as an occupier. It was also noted that Inamdar might assign his rights in favour of other parties, who would then be entitled to all of those rights, and that doing so was not against the law.
According to senior counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana, who also represents another petitioner, it may not be required to determine whether the division bench decisions in the cases of Ramender Reddy and S Veera Reddy were made correctly or incorrectly. On the other hand, the full bench would respond to the inquiry on the eligibility of the purchaser from the Inamdar for issuance of ORC based on the interpretation of the Act’s provisions and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
After hearing of all counsels, the full bench upheld the law established in the B Ramender Reddy case and overruled the verdict in the S Veera Reddy case.