Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by three petitioners challenging the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 6.3.1990 and the Collector, Nanded dated 9.1.1991 concerning land Survey No.33 situated at Kandhar, District Nanded. The background of the case involves one Sayed Jalal who was the original occupant of several lands including Survey No.33/1, 33/2, 34/1, 34/2, 34/3 and 34/4 at Bahadurpura, taluka Kandhar. After his death, his sons Sayed Ahmad and Sayed Fatehulla jointly occupied the lands. Subsequently, the Inam was abolished under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Sayed Ahmad was asked to deposit occupancy price, which he did, and ownership was allegedly conferred upon him. The petitioners claimed to be the successors-in-interest of Sayed Ahmad. However, the authorities found that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that ownership was actually conferred or that they were in possession of the land. The Collector and Additional Commissioner both held against the petitioners. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioners had not placed on record any order conferring ownership or any revenue records showing their possession. The court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to establish their title and possession, which they failed to discharge. The court further held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Inam Abolition - Ownership Rights - Burden of Proof - Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - The petitioners claimed ownership based on deposit of occupancy price by their predecessor-in-title, but failed to produce any documentary evidence of conferment of title or possession after abolition - Held that mere deposit of occupancy price does not automatically confer ownership without a proper inquiry and order by the competent authority (Paras 1-5). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The Collector and Additional Commissioner concurrently found that the petitioners were not in possession and had no title - Held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence to reverse concurrent findings unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners had acquired ownership rights over the disputed land after the abolition of Inam and deposit of occupancy price, and whether the impugned orders of the Collector and Additional Commissioner were legally sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on claimant to establish ownership and possession
- Inam abolition extinguishes prior rights
- Occupancy price deposit does not automatically confer title without proper inquiry
- Writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence in concurrent findings.
