A Court Cannot Deny Just Maintenance Merely Because the Applicant Claimed Less: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Support for Elderly Wife Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proved Beyond Doubt: Kerala High Court Affirms Conviction in Bribery Case Violation of Decree Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Ensuring Teacher Attendance Through Technology is Not Arbitrary, But Privacy of Female Teachers Must Be Protected: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Circular Once a Mortgage is Permitted, Auction Sale Needs No Further NOC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Delay Defeats Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment as PCS (Judicial) After 16-Year Delay Minor Signature Differences Due to Age and Health Do Not Void Will if Testamentary Capacity Established: Kerala High Court Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Stalled on Grounds of Political Conspiracy Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Refused to Quash FIR Against MLA Munirathna Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case Fraud Vitiates Everything—Sale of Debuttar Property by Sole Shebait Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Reassessment Cannot Be Used to Reopen Settled Issues Without New Material – Bombay High Court Quashes ₹542 Crore Tax Demand on Tata Communications Repeated FIRs Against Multiple Accused Raise Serious Questions on Motive: Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Inquiry Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers A Contract Must Be Read as a Whole – Selective Interpretation Cannot Create Rights: Bombay High Court Preventive Detention Cannot Be a Substitute for Criminal Trial, but Habitual Offenders Cannot Claim Immunity: Delhi High Court Upholds NDPS Detention Self-Defence Cannot Justify Armed Assault—Force Must Be Proportionate to Threat: Punjab & Haryana High Court Public Service Commission Cannot Shift Stance on Qualification Criteria Arbitrarily – Kerala High Court in LDC Recruitment Case Mere Allegations Without Specific Instances of Cruelty Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Proof Beyond Doubt Is the Only Standard: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Bank Cannot Hold Pledged Shares After Settlement of Dues: Bombay High Court Orders PNB to Return ITC Shares to Stockbroker Second Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC If De Facto Separation from First Marriage Proven: Supreme Court Extradition Cannot Be Ordered When Passport is Impounded: Supreme Court Quashes Order Against NRI Husband Justice Must Not Be an Illusion: Supreme Court Directs All Courts to Ensure Execution of Decrees Within Six Months Mere Inconvenience Cannot Override Statutory Jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court Rejects Transfer Petition Supreme Court Rules: Summoning Orders Under Section 319 CrPC Can Relate Back to Original Application Even After Trial Conclusion

Telangana High Court Confirms Revenue Officers Can Issue Occupancy Rights, Rejects Challenge to Inams Rule

09 September 2024 8:33 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Telangana High Court dismisses challenge to Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, asserting that the rule is consistent with Section 24 of the Act. The Telangana High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975. The petitioners argued that Rule 18 was contrary to Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The Court ruled that Rule 18 aligns with the legislative framework and confirmed the jurisdiction of Revenue Divisional Officers (RDOs) to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under Section 10 of the Act.

Petitioner Smt. N. Indiramma, a 64-year-old widow from Mahabubnagar district, challenged Rule 18 of the 1975 Rules, arguing that only a District Collector, not a Revenue Divisional Officer, could issue Occupancy Rights Certificates. Her husband, late N. Sreenivas Chary, owned 7.10 acres of agricultural land. After his death, she sought to mutate her name in the revenue records but found that the RDO had issued ORCs for the same land in favor of respondents on the basis of a simple sale deed. The petitioner’s subsequent appeals and revisions were unsuccessful, leading her to file the writ petition questioning the legality of Rule 18.

Competency of Revenue Divisional Officer: The primary contention was that the Collector, under Section 24 of the Act, alone had the authority to issue ORCs and that Rule 18, by delegating this power to RDOs, exceeded the statutory mandate. However, the Court pointed out that Section 2(1)(a) of the Act allows the government to authorize officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector to perform the functions of the Collector. The Court emphasized that, as per notifications issued by the government, RDOs have been empowered to discharge the Collector's duties under Section 10, including issuing ORCs.

Consistency with Section 24 of the Act: The petitioners argued that Rule 18 contradicts Section 24 of the Act, which prescribes the District Collector as the appellate authority. They maintained that allowing an RDO to function as the primary authority created a conflict. The Court, however, disagreed, stating that the rule-making authority has the power to delegate such functions and that Rule 18 is consistent with the Act's provisions. It noted that appeals from an RDO’s decision could be made to the District Collector, preserving the appellate structure under the Act.

The Court extensively analyzed the statutory provisions and prior judgments to assert that Rule 18 does not violate the legislative intent of the Inams Act. The judgment referred to relevant case law, including Roop Chand vs. State of Punjab and Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., to demonstrate that delegated powers exercised by officers like RDOs still operate under the aegis of the principal authority, in this case, the Collector.

Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, while delivering the judgment, observed: “The provisions of the Act and the Rules, when read together, make it clear that Rule 18 of the 1975 Rules is in consonance with Section 24 of the Act. The delegation of powers to the RDO does not violate the statutory scheme, and the petitioners’ challenge on this ground is untenable.”

The Telangana High Court's dismissal of the writ petition underscores the legal validity of Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975. By confirming the RDO’s jurisdiction under the Act, the Court has reinforced the broader statutory scheme for the adjudication of occupancy rights. This decision will likely impact future cases involving land disputes under the Inams Abolition Act, reinforcing the legitimacy of delegated powers in the revenue administration.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024

Smt. N. Indiramma vs. State of Telangana

Similar News