Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

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