@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ghulam Mohammed, J.@mdashThis writ petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ or order declaring the order in File No. J/76/Inam/1994, dated 17-6-1996 passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Medak District, at Sanga Reddy, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the same in the interest of justice.
2. The genealogy of the case as borne out from the material made available, is as follows:
One Abida Banu Sahiba was the Inamdar of the land in Sy.No. 90 admeasuring Ac.15-30 guntas and Sy.No. 164 admeasuring Ac. 13-02 guntas situated at Raikode village and Mandal in Medak District (for brevity, ''the lands in question''). The village Raikode was an ex-Jagir un-surveyed village of erstwhile Bidar District and after the reorganisation of the States in the year 1956, this village has been merged into Medak District.
3. The case of the petitioner who claims to be the grandson of Abida Banu Sahiba is that the lands in question are Masrut-Ul Kidmat i.e., service inam lands attached to Durgah of Hazrath Khaja Abdul Fiaz Saheb at Bidar and an entry to that effect was made in Munthaquab No. 192 of 1298 Fasli. After abolition of Jagirdar system, succession proceedings under the Atiyath Inquiries Act, 1952, took place and the competent authority under the Atiyath Inquiries Act granted succession in the name of the Abida Banu Sahiba in the year 1953 and the said proceedings became final. It is stated that after the demise of Abida Banu Sahiba in the year 1959, the petitioner made an application to the competent authority under the Atiyath Inquiries Act for the grant of succession, and succession was granted in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 8-5-1962 in File No. B4/5293/60 and the petitioner as the Sajjada and Mutavalli of the said Dargha has been managing the lands in question and getting them cultivated.
4. Aggrieved by the grant of succession in favour of the petitioner, Mr. Nagishetty, the father of respondents 2 to 4 and husband of respondent No. 5 herein challenged the succession proceedings before the Nazim Atiyath Revenue Department, Government of A.P. Hyderabad, and the competent authority, by proceedings dated 30-1-1963 refused to grant leave to appeal on the ground that Mr. Nagishetty and his wife were not adversely affected by the succession proceedings granted in favour of the petitioner.
5. While the matter stood thus, on coming to know that the names of Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma, who is 5th respondent in this writ petition, were entered in the tenancy register as tenants in possession of the lands in question, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, seeking to delete their names from the tenancy extracts on the ground that the service inam lands are saved from the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The RDO, Sangareddy, after conducting a thorough enquiry, by order dated 28-4-1960, in File No. A3/1109/60, allowed the appeal and pursuant to the said order dated 28-4-1960, the Tahsildar concerned deleted the name of Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma from the tenancy register. The order dated 28-4-1960 allowing the appeal by RDO, Sangareddy, and the consequent action of the Tahsildar concerned in deleting the names from the tenancy register was not called in question before any forum by them as such the said proceedings became final. The proceedings dated 28-4-1960 passed by the RDO, Sangareddy, was though binding on Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma, it is stated that in collusion with the Village Patwari they once again got entered their names in the revenue records as the cultivating tenants of the lands in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner file an appeal before the Additional Collector in File No. A8/427/60, dated 9-11-1960 and in File No. B4/40/62, dated 27-6-1962 respectively and the Additional Collector, after hearing the parties, set aside the entries made in the revenue records and had observed that the Village Patwari of Raikode Village was hand in glove with Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma in making the entries in the revenue records. It is stated that thereafter, once again the village Patwari entered the names of Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma in the revenue records in the year 1983, aggrieved by which the petitioner again preferred an appeal in File No. A5/32/63 before the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, and the same was ultimately directed to be deleted by the District Collector, Medak District by proceedings dated 29-12-1964.
6. Though the names of Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma were deleted from the revenue records by proceedings dated 29-12-1964, as the possession of the lands in question was with Mr. Nagishetty and his wife Smt. Ratnamma, the petitioner instituted a suit being OS No. 14 of 1964 on the file of District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy for recovery of possession and for mesne profits which was decreed as prayed for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 14 of 1964, the matter was unsuccessfully carried in appeal in AS No. 95 of 1967 and in further appeal in LPA No. 169 of 1970 before a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Trial Court seeking a direction to the Receiver, who was appointed at the instance of the petitioner in IA No. 80 of 1964, during the pendency of the suit OS No. I4 of 1964 to take possession of the lands in question, to deliver possession of the lands in question to the petitioner. It is stated that on an application made by the petitioner, the Trial Court had directed the Receiver to deliver possession of the lands and accordingly the lands were given possession to the petitioner by the Receiver on 13-4-1980. It is stated that after the petitioner was put in possession of the lands in question, the sons of Mr. Nagishetty who are respondents 2 to 4 and his wife Smt. Ratnamma respondent No. 5, have tried to dispossess the petitioner forcibly and illegally and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file OS No. 23 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Medak, for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the lands in question. It is stated that the said suit OS No. 23 of 1980 was also decreed by the Trial Court as prayed for by the petitioner.
7. While matter stood thus, respondents 2 to 5 have filed an application u/s 6 of the A.P. (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, for grant of occupancy certificates in respect of the lands in question on the ground that they are the persons actually cultivating the lands in question as on the date of abolition of imams and therefore they are entitled to occupancy certificates. It is stated that the RDO, Sangareddy, by proceedings dated 6-5-1980 granted occupancy certificates in favour of respondents 2 to 5. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings dated 6-5-1980 in writ petition being WPNo. 1253 of 1981. This Court by order dated 9-2-1987 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to file an appeal u/s 24 of the A.P. (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, before the competent authority i.e., District Collector, Medak, as against the proceedings dated 6-5-1980 passed by the RDO, Sangareddy. As directed by this Court in its order dated 9-2-1987, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Medak, who after hearing both the parties, remanded the matter to the RDO, Sangareddy, for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to remand, the RDO, Sangareddy, by order dated 28-8-1993, confirmed the proceedings dated 6-5-1980 granting occupancy certificates in favour of respondents 2 to 5. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 28-8-1993, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, in File No. B2/9/93. The Joint Collector, after hearing both the parties, allowed the appeal and once again remanded the matter to the RDO, Sangareddy, for; disposal afresh. The RDO, Sangareddy, once again after hearing the parties, by order dated 18-7-1994 while rejecting the request of the respondents 2 to 5 to issue occupancy certificates held that the lands in question are service inam lands and therefore saved from the provisions of the AP (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, respondents 2 to 5 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy. By the impugned order dated 17-6-1996, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, set aside the order dated 18-7-1994 passed by the RDO, Sangareddy and consequently directed to grant occupancy certificates in favour of the respondents 2 to 5 within a period of 60 days. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17-6-1996, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate relief.
8. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.R. Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
9. Learned Counsel Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, vehemently contended that Section 102 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, expressly saved the service inam lands and imams held by religious or charitable institutions from its application and ignoring this fact the name of the father of respondents 2 to 4 and respondent No. 5 was entered as cultivating tenants of the lands in question. It is further contends that right from the proceedings under the Atiyath Inquiries Act it has been consecutively held by the competent authorities that the lands in question are service inam lands and the respondents having fully aware of these events managed to enter their names as protected tenants in the revenue records and as such entries were directed to be deleted by the competent authorities on more than one occasion. Learned Counsel further submits as evident from the recitals of the Munthaquab No. 192 of 1298 Fasli and also in the succession proceedings granted in favour of the petitioner the lands in question were categorized as conditional service inam lands. Learned Counsel submitted that the Civil Court in OS No. 14 of 1964 after full-fledged trial and after considering the relevant documents held that the lands in question and service inam lands attached to Durgah, and the said finding when called in question by the respondents 2 to 5, was affirmed by the first appellate Court in AS No. 95 of 1967 and in further appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 169 of 1970. Learned Counsel lastly contended that in view of the voluminous material evidencing that the lands in question are service inam lands, the 1st respondent having miscdirected himself erroneously held that the lands in question are seri inam lands, and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. C.R. Prathap Reddy, appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 contended that after abolition of Jagirs, all inam lands including service inam lands stood vested in the Government u/s 3 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and therefore the succession granted in favour of the petitioner by proceedings in File No. B4/5293/60, dated 8-5-1962 was ex facie void ab intio as the Abolition of Inams Act came into effect from 20-6-1955. It is further contended by learned Counsel that as on the date of vesting the inam lands in favour of the Government, Mr. Nagishetty, the father of the respondents 2 to 4 and his wife respondent 5 were cultivating tenants of lands in question as such their names were mutated in the revenue records as cultivating tenants and tenancy certificates under Sections 35 and 37 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were issued. It is also contended that the petitioner''s father granted patta in favour of Mr. Nagishetty''s father i.e., grandfather of respondents 2 to 4, in the year 1923 and the lands in question being Jagir lands, the respondents are entitled to claim the property being the pattadars of the lands. It is further contended that the Special Tribunals constituted under the Atiyath Inquiries Act, 1952, the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, alone have exclusive jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question under these Acts, and as such the findings arrived by the Civil Court in OS No. 14 of 1964 holding that the lands in question are service inam lands was without jurisdiction and as such contends that the impugned order is well considered one needs no interference by this Court.
11. To clinch the issue in this case, it would be apropos to deal with the revolving issue i.e., whether the lands in question are service inam or seri inam lands. The best guide to know whether the lands in question was a personal grant or a service grant would be the document under which such grant was made. In the instant case, the petitioner is basing his claim on the Munthakhab (grant) No. 192 of 1298 Fasli. According to this Munthakhab, though the original is not available, but as per the recitals made in the sucession proceedings, with regard to the recitals in the Munthakhab, issued under the Atiyath Inquiries Act, 1952, the entire Raikode Village was declared as Madad-e-Mash, a personal grant to the inamdar and there is no specific categorization of the lands as seri inam lands or service inam lands. But in the succession statement No. 58/1339 Fasli of Atiyat Gulberga, an endorsement dated 9th Isfandar 1342 Fasli of the then Government was made to the effect that the first Sanad dated 27th Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1071 Hijri was issued by the Alamgir Badshah in favour of Syed Mohammed for expenses of Langer Khana, Oodh, Ink, Water and other requirements for maintaining the Dargha. The second Sanad was issued by the Alamgir Badsha on 19th Rajjab 1099 Hijri in favour of Syed Abdul Quader, s/o. Syed Mohammed for the same purposes. From a perusal of the first and second Sanads and succession granted in File No. B4/5293/60, under which the inam was transferred from the original inamdar Abida Banu Sahiba in favour of the petitioner it is clear that the grant was a service grant for meeting the expenses of Langer khana, Oodh, Ink, Water and other requirements for maintaining the Durgha. Though there was no specific indication as to the nature of the land in the original Munthakhab No. 192 of 1298 Fasli, in all consecutive successions proceedings granted it was endorsed that the grant was a service grant for rendering services to the Durgha. A copy of the succession statement No. 4/58 of 1339 issued with reference to Munthakhab No. 1645, dated 18th Aaban 1298 Fasli by which succession was granted in favour Syed Shah Moinuddin Hussaini the condition of grant was mentioned as Mashrootul Khidmath Durgah Hazrath Syed Shah Ameenuddin Abdul Faiz Minullah Hussaini and Khankha Shareef, whereas in Munthakhab dated 18th Aaban 1298 Fasli the condition of grant was mentioned as Tahet Kharch Langer Khankha Wagera Syed (Dareeda) Allahdara Vajhu Madad Maash. The succession certificate granted in favour of the petitioner under the Atiyath Inquiries Act, by the Addl. District Collector, Medak, was unsuccessfully called in question by the respondents in appeal, as such in view of the Section 13 of the Atiyath inquiries Act, the succession granted in favour of the petitioner became final. After the abolition of the Jagirs, during the years 1950 and 1956 the Village records pertaining to Raikode village show that the lands in question are service inam lands and the name of the petitioner''s grand mother was shown as the inamdar. Since the lands in question was in occupation of Mr. Nagishetty and his wife as on the date of abolition of the Jagirs, and having come to know that the persons in occupation of the inam lands are protected under the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the Village Patwari seems to have unhesitatingly mutated the names of the Mr. Nagishetty and his wife as cultivating tenants entitling them for grant of occupancy certificates, which were directed to be deleted by the competent authorities on more than one occasion by observing that the village Patwari was hand in glove with occupants of the lands in question in mutating their names. It is not the case of the respondents that they were unaware of the succession granted in favour of the petitioner because they appealed against the grant of succession in favour of the petitioner unsuccessfully. A perusal of various proceedings and the recitals contained therein, it is clear that the lands in question are service inam lands held for the benefit of Durgah of Hazrath Khaja Abdul Fiaz Saheb at Bidar and as such they are saved from the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
12. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that all the imams including service imams stood vested in the Government from 20-6-1955 and therefore the succession granted in favour of the petitioner is null and void cannot be accepted for the reason that the succession granted in favour of the petitioner was a continuation of the original grant in favour of his grand-mother Abida Banu Sahiba and it is not a fresh grant, as such. Further the respondents having contested the suit OS No. 14 of 1964 filed by the petitioner and having unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal in AS No. 95 of 1967 and in further appeal in LPA No. 169 of 1970 before a Division Bench of this Court, now cannot contend that the Civil Court cannot decide the nature of the lands. Though it is to be accepted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide an issue, when such an issue is to be dealt by a Special Tribunal constituted under a statute, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is explicitly or impliedly barred, yet every Court possess inherent powers in its very constitution, such powers which are necessary to do the right and undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice in matters which are brought before it. In the instant case, though the petitioner instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the lands in question and for past and further mesne profits, the Civil Court was well within its jurisdiction to deal with the case comprehensively to come to a just conclusion and in the process make observations as to the nature of the suit lands based on documents adduced before it, which was affirmed by the first appellate Court and in further appeal by this Court. Independent of the findings given by the Civil Court in OS No. 14 of 1964 as to the nature of the lands in question, there is ample material to indicate that the grant in question was a service grant. As the lands in question are as service inam lands held for the benefit and maintenance of the Durgah, the question of registering the respondents as occupants under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, does not arise. Though the respondents allege that their grandfather was granted patta by the petitioner''s father in the year 1923, except the oral statement, there is nothing on record to show that patta as alleged by the respondents was granted in favour of their grandfather by the petitioner''s father. In view of the voluminous material evidencing that the lands in question are service inam lands, I am of the considered view that the 1st respondent having misdirected himself held that the lands in question are seri inam lands, and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in File No. J/76/Inam/1994, dated 17-6-1996 passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Medak District, at Sanga Reddy, is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
