- (1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in Case No.F2/IA-01/2009, dated 22-01-2011 of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar.
(2.) THE 1st respondent herein filed the appeal before the Joint Collector, under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in file No.K/964/96, dated 30-04-1996 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate over Survey Nos.74, 75/1, 75/2, 76, 77, 246/1 of a total extent of Ac.14.03 guntas at Pothulamadugu village of Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. THE 1st respondent herein contended that the lands are service inam lands endowed to Sri Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Pothulamadugu for which persons of Nambi family were poojaries. THE temple inam lands burdened with service of performing poojas in the temple by Nambi family were under cultivation of the poojaries for their livelihood firstly, with Nambi Narayanamma, then with Nambi Narsimhulu and then with Nambi Ovaiah. Nambi Ovaiah, the husband of the 2nd respondent and father of respondents 3 and 4 herein and the revision petitioners herein, suppressing the said facts obtained the impugned Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour and got the lands mutated in their names as pattedars in the Record of Rights. THE Revenue Divisional Officer did not conduct any enquiry, did not issue any notice to the persons interested or the temple, and hence, the appeal before the Joint Collector. The respondents to the appeal submitted written arguments along with the xerox copies of sethwar, Khasra Pahani and Pahani of 1973-74. They contended that the person, who filed the appeal as Chairman of the temple, was not appointed by any competent authority as such, and was not empowered to file the appeal. The lands are Mafi Inam lands but not endowment property and even if the lands are endowment lands, it is for the Endowments officials to dispute the title and ownership of the respondents. The Joint Collector after perusing the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, observed that as per Khasra Pahani 1954-55, the survey numbers were classified as Khidmati (service) Inam lands and so was the Sethwar. The lands were registered in the Endowments Register as lands belonging to the temple with Nambi Narsamma as the notified poojari. Any dispute as to ownership or deletion of the lands from the Register of Endowments is within the competence of the Deputy Commissioner and so long as the land is in the Register of Endowments, it shall be regarded as religious property belonging to the temple with Nambi family cultivating the lands. The Joint Collector also noted that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in letter No.B/750/2006, dated 1-11-2006 confirmed that M. Pullaiah, who filed the appeal, was elected as Chairman of the temple and he was competent to file the appeal. The Joint Collector observed that even any devotee interested in the temple is at liberty to file an appeal to protect the temple property. The Joint Collector referred to both the provisos to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 1994 with effect from 26-12-1985 prohibiting the registration of any person as occupant under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act except the institution itself where the lands are held for the benefit of religious institution and any registration to the contrary being null and void. Consequently, the Occupancy Rights Certificate was considered null and void and the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar.
(3.) THE revision petitioners filed the revision against the temple, wife and sons of Ovaiah and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, while mentioning respondents 5 to 7 shown in the cause title to be not necessary parties. The revision petitioners claimed that M. Pullaiah is not concerned with the temple and is not the Chairman of the Trust Board and was not appointed by the Government. The copy of the letter from the 8th respondent dated 1-11-2006 referred to in the impugned order was not served on the revision petitioners. There was no procedure for election of Chairman and how the Joint Collector got the letter is unknown. Hence, Sri M. Pullaiah has no locus standi to file the appeal and if the lands belonged to an endowment, the Endowments authorities are the proper persons to file an appeal. The lands are Mafi Inam lands and not Khidmati (service) Inam lands, as shown by the xerox copies of the records filed by the revision petitioners and Nambi Ramaiah, poojari of the temple during Fasli 1332 was shown in the sethwar as Inamdar and Kathadar. The name of the temple was not shown in Column No.6 of Sethwar and Mafi Inam means "free" whereas khidmati means "service". Mafi Inam places no burden on the inamdar and the provisions of Section 4 (1) as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 1994 are inapplicable as the lands are held by Nambi Ramaiah in his individual capacity. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting Occupancy Rights Certificate was right and the order of the Joint Collector was based on presumptions and assumptions without any record. The revision petitioners, therefore, desired the appellate order of the Joint Collector to be set aside.;