'1 Shankaraiah. S/or Late Kistaiah. aged about 55 years. occ v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ' Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of L4andamus' declaring the impugned order passed by the 2"d respondent d1.27 -11'2021 bearing F2t371212014-F2t,A33/2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitroner No 1 and the father of the petitrcner Nos l to 3 herein confirming the ORC rssued by the 3rd respondent bearinc No 1/3550/1998 dt. 1-3-1999, without there being any reply nor counter from the unofficial respondents, as being illegal' arbitrary' uniust' unilateral and un constitution al and consequently set aside the same' IA NO i2 OF 2022 petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent herein not to receive or register any document presented by the unofficial respondents in respect of the land in Sy'No' 371E1 & E2 admeasuring Ac. 7 01 gts , and Sy No 148/C&D admeasuring Ac 0 010 gts situated at Yetham village, Kodair Mandal' Nagarkurnool District' pending disposal of the W.P.No. 3901 ol 2022' ' IA NO: 'lo F 2022 er Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in in support of the petition the High Court n]ay be pleased to by the 2nd respondent dl' 27-11'2A21 con{irming the ORC ssued bY the 3rd 1-3-1999, pending orsposal of the main Petition r-rnd the affidavit f iled suspend the imPUgned order Passed bearing F2 13712 12O14-F2llA33t2O14 respondent bearing No 1/3550/1998 dt Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI DONTIREDDY SRINIVASA REDOY Counsel for the Respondent Nosl to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No 6: SRI RAMESH BURA Counsel for the Respondent No'7 to 9:-' The Court made the following: ORDER h HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39Ol. of 2022 - ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by the Additional District Coliector-respondent No.2 in Proceedings No.F2 I 37 12 I 20 1 4 -?2 I IA33 I 20 14, dated 27 . 1 L.202 L dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein confirming the ORC issued by respondent No.3 bearing No.l/3550/1998, dated 01.03.1999, withorlt there bcing any rcply nor counter from the unofficial respondents, as iilegal, arbitrary atrd consecluently prayed lo set aside the same'

2. Considcred thc submissions of lcarned counsel for the rcsi:cctive parties and perused thc recorcl.

3. lt is stated that originally the grandlather of the petitioners was the owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.7.O1 gts., in Sy.No.37lE1 and 82, Ac.O.10 gts., in Sy.No.148/C&D, situated at Yetham Village, Kodiar Mandal, Nagarkurnool District and the said lands are recorded as Begari Inam lands. It is further stated that the grandfather of the petitioners has two daughters uiz., Pedda Edamma and Yellamma and father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and petitioner No 4 ) are the sons of Smt. Pedda Edamma and the unofficial respondents are the sons of Smt' Yellamma and they are aIl jointly in possession and enj oyment of the subject land' The case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos'S and 6, suppressing the fact that the subject lands are in joint possession, made an application for issuance of ORC in respect of the subject lands and the then Revenue Divisional Officer' Nagarkurnool, without conducting any enquiry and without favour ol respondent ORC in issuing any notice has issr:ed Nos.5 arrd 6 in Form-lll beartng No.l/3550/98, dated same, the father ol Petitioner

01.03.1999. Aggrieved bY the Nos.l to 3 and petitioncr No 4 have filed an appcal bcforc respondent No.2 under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short' the Ac'", 1955) read with Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act'

1956. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No'2 has dismissed the said appeal in Case No'F2/371212O14 - F2llA 3312014, uide order dated 27.LL'2O21' Hence, the present writ petition. 4, Perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No'2 revea-ls that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, llagarkurnool, issued ORC in favour J of respondent Nos.S and 6 herein vide Proc.No.l/ 3550/98, dated 01.03.1999, after issuing notice in Form-ll as required under Rule 6(1) of Telangana State Abolition of Inam Rule, 1975 :rncl nftcr vt:rificertion of the pzrhanies lor thc year 1973-74 and 1998-99, r.r'herein, neither the names of the petitioners herein nor their parents were reflected as possessors and moreover, the appeal has been filed after a lapse of 15 years of issuance of ORC without submitting the reasons for the delay.

5. In view of the above, the reasons recorded by both the authorities do not require any interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-L . LAKSHMI BAB U EP UTY REGISTR AR SECTION OFFICER One CC to Sri Dontireddy Srinivasa Reddy, Ad Iyr.:rt;li"",irror Revenue, Hish court ror the One CC to Sri Ramesh Bura, Advocatelopuc] Two CD Copies vocate [oPuc] State of Telangana, at C- To, 1 2 3 4 TJ DJ HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.3901 of 2022 ( f, o ', rtE STA 14: [2 i,IAY 06 C) + l)A'[ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @)q'' K-