",,"ri v. 1. The Joint Collector

lS.Mandugula sri Ramulu, S/o. Late Narsimha Business Fi/o. Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. l9.Mandugula Mallesha, Sio. Late Narsimha Pvt. Service R:/o. Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

20. Hamsamma, D/o. Late Narsimha Household Fi/o. Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

21. Mandugula Srinivas, S/o. Late Narsimha Business FI/o. Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

22. U. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Late U. Venkateshwara Rao Business Rl/o H.No.7-1-396-B/5, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500 038. ....RESPONDENT Nos15 to 22IRESPONDENTS No. 1 to 8 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 vacate the interim order dated 27.04.2009 in WPMP.No. 11338 of 2009 in WP.No. 8652 of 2009 in respect of the land of an extent of Ac. 14-00 guntas in Sy.No. 251, situated at Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI ALI FARAZ FAROOQUI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to7 : -- Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the lmplead Respondent No.9 : SRI SRICHARAN TELAPROLU W.P.NO: 27953 OF 2022 Between:

1. Sri Madugula Bikshapathi, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 59 Years, Occ- Business R/0 H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District

2. Sri. Madugula Sriramulu, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 57 Years, Occ- Business R/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. Sri. Madugula Mallesha, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 51 Years, Occ- Business R/0 H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

4. Sri. Madugula Srinivas, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 48 Years, Occ- Business R/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District 5. Madugula Hamsamma, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 50 Years, Occ- Housewife R/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District- .....PETITIONERS AND

1. The State Of Telangana, Rep by lts Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District , Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

3. Abdullapurmet Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distric.

4. Zainab Bee, W/o Sharifuddin, Aged 65 Years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o Abdullapurmet Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Kanne Mallesh, S/o.Kanne llaiah, Aged About 40 Years, Occ-Agriculture, Ri/o.H.No.4-68, Bandaravirala Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in entertaining applications for sanction of building permissions in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 2-12 Gts in Sy No. 251 including granting sanction in respect of Plot No.plot No.131 admeasuring 220 Sq.yards vide proceedings No.16B/BPl2O22 dated 0'l- 04-2022 is in violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.11338 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.B652l2009 dated 27-O4-2OOS wherein both the parties are directed to maintain status quo until further orders and also the orders dated 28-02-2009 of the Joint Collector passed in file No.F113811 of 2008 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates to the Petitioners as illegal and arbitrary, Consequently, to restrain the Respondent No.3 from granting any further permissions for construction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts. in Sy.No.251 of Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also to suspend the permission dated 01-04-2O22 vide proceed ing No.1 68 IBP I 2022. |.A.NO:1 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 restrain the Respondent No.3 from granting any further permissions for construction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts. in Sy.No.2S1 ol Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal , Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A.NO:2 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 suspend the permission dated 01-04-2022 vide proceeding No.16B/BP/2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.5 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI C.KALYAN RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : - W.P.NO: 2923 OF 2023 Between:

1. Sri Madugula Bixapathi, S/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 59 Years, Occ. Business R/o H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

2. Sri. Madugula Sriramulu, S/O Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 57 Years, Occ. Business Fi./O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. Sri. Madugula Mallesha, S/O Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 51 Years, Occ. Business R/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village; Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

4. Sri. Madugula Srinivas, S/O Late Narshimha Madugula Aged 48 Years, Occ. Business F/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

5. Madugula Hamsamma, S/O Late Narshimha Madugula Housewife R/O H.No 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdulapur District. Aged 50 Years, Occ. Mandal, Rangareddy .....PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep By lts Principal Secretary Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kogan Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. I

3. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District' 4. Zainab Bee, W/o Sharifuddin, Aged 65 Years, Occ. Housewife, F/o Abdullapurmet Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist'

5. Md. Haneef, S/o lsmail Saheb Aged about 75 yeqrs, Occ. Retired, Rl/o' Abdullapur Village, HayathnagaiMandal, Ranga Reddy District'

6. Moinuddin, S/o lsmail Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business, Ri./o. Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. lmamuddin, S/O lsmail Aged about 62 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the mutation of the names of the Respondent No. 4 i.e zainab Bee in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0-19 Gts in Sy No. 25211 and Ac. Ac. 1-19 Gts in Sy No. 253, the name of Respondent No. 5 i.e., Md' Haneef in respect of Ac.0-19 Gts in Sy No.25212 and Ac' 1-18 Gts in Sy No' 25312'lhe name of Respondent No. 6 i.e Moinuddin in respect of Ac. 0-34 gts in Sy No' 25313 and Ac. O-19 Gts in Sy No.25213 and the name of Respondent No' 7 i'e lmamuddin in respect of land of Ac. 0-18 Gts in Sy No.25214 and Ac. 1-19 Gts in sy No. 25314 ot Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently to direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 not to entertain registration of any deeds executed by Respondents No. 4 to 7 in respect of the above said lands. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 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 Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to entertain registration of any deeds executed and presented by Respondents No. 4 to 7 in respect of land in the name of Respondent No.4 i.e., Zainab Bee in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0-19 Gts in Sy No. 252t1 and Ac. Ac. 1-19 Gts in Sy No. 253, in the name of Respondent No. 5 i.e., Md. Haneef in respect of Ac. 0-19 Gts in Sy No.25212 and Ac. '1-18 Gts in Sy No. 25312, in the name of Respondent No. 6 i,e Moinuddin in respect of Ac. 0-34 gts in Sy No. 253/3 and Ac. 0-19 Gts in Sy No.25213 and in the name of Respondent No. 7 i.e lmamuddin in respect of land of Ac. 0-'l B Gts in Sy No. 252t4 and Ac. '1-'19 Gts in Sy No. 253/4 of Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : SRI ALI FARAZ FAROOQUI W.P.NO: 3098 OF 2024 Between: '1 . Mrs. Zainab Bee, W/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 69 years, Household. Ri/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Mrs. Parvin Begum, D/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 49 years, Household. Rlio Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Md. Rafiuddin, S/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 48 years, Panchayat Secretary.Fl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4. Shahana Begum, Wo Late Md.Shafiuddin, Aged 42 years, Household. Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Saifuddin, S/o Late Mohd. Shafiuddin Aged 21 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. Asaduddin, S/o Late Mohd. Shafiuddin Aged 19 years, Student, Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Md.Fakhruddin, S/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 43 years, Occ' Business. Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Md.Mairajuddin, D/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 40 yearsr Occ. Business. R/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Nasreen, D/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 37 years, Household. Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Surayya, D/o Late Mohd.sharfuddin Aged Q5 yeqs, Household. R/o Abduliapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

11.Saleha, D/o Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Aged 32 years, Student. R/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

12.Md.Haneef, S/o Late Md.lsmail Sab Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business. Ri/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

13.Md. Moinuddin, S/o Late Md. lsmail Sab Aged 66 years, Occ. Business, Ri'/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

14.Md.lmamuddin, S/o Late Md. lsmail SabAged 59 years, RTC Employee. All Rl/o Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rqlga Re.ddy- District. (Petitioners 1 to .l2 and 14 are represented by their GPA Holder, Petitioner No. 13, Md. Moinuddin). AND .....PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Administration Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. fhe Joint Collector, R.R. District, at Kongara Kalan Village lbrahimpatnam, Kongara Kalan, Telangana 501 510.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy East Division) Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad.

4. Sri Madugula Bikshapathi, S/o. Late Narshimha Madugula, Aged about 60 Years, Occ.- Business, R/o. H. No. 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

5. Sri. Madugula Sriramulu, S/o. Late Narshimha Madugula Aged about 58 Years, Occ - Business, R|/o. H. No. 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

6. Sri. Madugula Mallesha, S/o. Late Narshimha Madugula Aged about 52 Years, Occ.- Business, Rl/o. H. No. 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

7. Sri. Madugula Srinivas, S/o. Late Narshimha Madugula Aged about 49 Years, Occ.- Business, Fl/o. H. No. 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

8. Sri Madugula Hamsamma, W/o Late Narshimha Madugula Aged about 51 Years, Occ.- Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 2-8, Abdullapur Village, Abdullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District.

9. Mr. U Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late U Venkateshwara Rao aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 7-1-396-8/5, Sanjive Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therbwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the impugned order Dt. 28-2-2009 in case No. F11381 1/08 on the file of the 2nd RespondenUJoint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Order Dt.2-3-2OO7 in File No. J/1865/06 on the file of the 3rd Respondent/RDO, and consequently declare the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent No.3/R.D.O., to issue Occupancy Rights Certificate to the Petitioners. |.A.NO: 1OF 2024 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 grant leave to the petitioners to file this writ petition without certified copy of lmpugned Order Dt. 28-02-2009, in Case No. F1l381 1/2008, on the file of the 2nd respondent Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, and Impugned Order in Proc. No. J/1B65/2006 on the file of the 3rd respondenU RDO, Ranga Reddy East Division, Hyderabad, by dispensing with the filing of the Certified Copy. l.A.NO:2 OF 2024 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 respondents 4 to 9, not to create any 3rd party interest over Sy. Nos. 251 ,252,253 admeasuring Ac. 15.00, Ac. 1.35 Gts. and Ac. 5.36 Gts. of Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District by suspending the order daled 28-2-2009 in case No. F1l3811/08 on the file of the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector and order Dt.2-3-2007, in file No. 3/1865/06 on the file of the 3rd respondent/RDO, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI ALI FARAZ FAROOQUI Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos.l to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : - The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLD SRI JUSTICE C'V' BHASKAR REDDY III/RIT PETITION Nos.8652 20,09 27953 2022 2923 2023and3 oesl 2o24 COMMON ORDER: TheissueinvolvedinthesewritPetitionsisintrinsically interconnected and therefore' they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order'

2. W.P.No.8652 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners i'e' Smt Zainab Beeandothers,seekingtodeclaret}reimpugnedorderdated 28.O2.2Xogpassed in Case Nos'F1/100/2003 and F1/3811/2008 by thc respondent No.1-Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District and also the order dated 02'03 2007 passed in File No'J/1865/2006 by the respondent No'2-Revenue Divisional Ofhcer (RDO)' as illegal' arbitrary and consequentty prayed this Court to set aside the same issue OccuPancY Rights and dircct the resPondent No'2 Ccrtificates (ORCs) to the p(jtttroners' also filed Writ Petition No 3098 of 2024 seeking similar relief' Smt.Zainab Bee and others W.P.No.27953 of 2022 is filed by petitioners i'e' Sri Madugula 3 Bikshapathi and others seeking following relief: ,,...to issue a wit, order or d.irection mire particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus lo dectare the action of the Respondent No 3 tn entertoining applications for sanction of building permissions in respecl of land admeasuing Ac 2-12 Gts 2 in Sy No 251 including granting sanction in respect of ptot No.131 admeasuring 22O Sq.gard_s uide proceed.ings No.168/ Bp/ 2O22 dated 01.O4.2022 is in uiolatton of the orders passed bg this Hon'ble Couri in W.p.M.p.No. I 133g of 2009 in Wit petition No.8652/2009 dated. 22.04.2009 wherein both the parties are directed to maintain stafi)s quo until further orders and. also the orders dated 28.02.2009 of the Joint Collector passed in file No.Fl/ 381 1 of 2O08 for grant of Occupancg Rights Certi"ficates to the Petitioners as iUegat and arbitrary, Consequentlg to restrain the Respondent No.3 from granting ang further pennissions for construction in respect of the land ad,measuing Ac.2 12 Gts in Sg.No.251 of Abdultapurmet Village and Mandal, Ranga Redd.g Distict and also to suspend the permtssion dated. O 1 .O4.2O22 uide proceeding No. 168/ Bp/ 2022"

4. W.P.No.2923 of 2023 is hled by Sri Madugula Bikshapathi and others seeking following relief: '...to issue a Wit, order or d.irection more partianlarly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus to decLare the mutation of the names of respondent No.4 i.e, Smt. Zainab Bee in respect of Land" admeosuing Ac.0.19 gts in Sg.No.252/ 1 and Ac.1.l9 gts in 59.No.253, the name of Respondent No.S i.e, Md.. Haneef in respect of Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/2 and Ac.l.1B gts in Sg.No.253/ 2, the nome of respondent No.6 i.e, Moinuddin in respect of Ac.0.34 gts in Sg.no.2S3/3 and Ac.O.19 gts in Sg.No.252/3 and th€ name of respondent No.7 i.e, Imamuddin in respect of land Ac.O.1B gts in Sg.No.252/4 and Ac. 1.19 gts in Sg.No.253/ 4 situated at Abd.ullapurmet Viltage and Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict as iltegal, arbitrary, unjust aftd consequentlg praged this Court to direct the respondent Nos.2 and_ 3 not to entertain registration of anA deeds executed. bg respondent nos.4 to 7 in respect of aboue said land.s_. " J

5. The petitioners in W.P. No. 8652 of 2OO9 and W.P. No. 3098 of 2024 are the unofficial respondents in W'P-No.27953 of 2022 and W.P. No. 2923 of 2023, and vice versa. For the sake of convenience, hereinalter the parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.8652 of 2OO9.

6. Writ Petition No.8652 of 2OO9 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lls in this batch of cases.

7. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in-interest Mohd. Ismail Saheb, was the inamdar for the lands admeasuring Ac. 14-3O gts in Sy.No.251, Ac.1-35 gts in Sy.No.252, Ac.5-35 gts in Sy.No.253, totai admeasuring Ac'22.30 gts (corresponding to old Sy.Nos.26 and 271 situated at Abdullapurmet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and after the death of original inamdar Mohd. Ismail Saheb on 01.04.1985, they being his successors, became the absolute owners of the said property. It is their case that the respondents are not entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "lnams Act") and in fact relying upon stray entry for the lands in Sy.No.253, a false claim was made by the respondents for issuance of ORCs. It is further case of petitioners thag the original and appellate authorities failed to examine the records properly and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be 1 set aside. Sri Harinder Pershad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referred the following decisions: i) Sged. Abdul Maieed and others as' Joi'tt Collector-Il' Ranga Reddg Distrtct and othersl, ii) N. Padmamma and others us. S' Ramak rishna Red'dg and others2, iii) Goaernment of Secretary and others iu) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddg District and anothet os' D.Narsing Roo and other{, u) S.P.Chengalaaraga Naidu (dead) bg L'Rs tts' Jagannath (dead) bg LRs and otherss. Andhra Pradesh through PrinciPal us. PRattrP Karan and others3, On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent Nos'3 to 7 I that one Madugula Mallaiah, was the Protected Tenant of land admeasuring Ac.10.02 gts in Sy'Nos '26 and 27 corresponding to new Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 situated at Abdullapurmet Village' and they are the successors-in-interest of the original tenant and as such, they are entitled for issuance o[ ORCs' g. Pending adjudication of the writ petition' a counter affldavit has been frled by the impleaded respondent No'9' wherein it is stated that it has purchased land in Sy'No'251 admeasuring Ac'14'00 gts under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'5287/2000' ' zooolsl aLo:aa 'izorsy t scc +tl t ltR zot6 sc lltT o etn zo l5 sc to2l '(1994) r scc I 5288 /2OOO dated 12.06.2000 and document Nos_4BZT /2OO1 and 4878/2OOl dated 31.05.20O1 and also land admeasu ring Ac.Z.32 yz gts in Sy.No.2SO. It is further stated by the respondent No.9 that its interest is limited only to sy.No.251 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.14.00 gts.

10. This Court has carefully examined the contentions of the learned counsel for respective parties and also the nature of lands, its classification and rights of the inter se parties to claim ORCs under the provisions of Inams Act. I i. The records reveals that Madugula Narasimha, predecessor_in_ interest of the respondents (petitioners in W.p.Nos.2795 3 of 2022 and, 2923 of 20231, claiming to be protected tenant in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 10-O0 gts in Sy.Nos.26 and, 27 corresponding to new Sy.Nos.2sl, 252 and 253, situated at Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga- Reddy District, filed an application for issuance of succession certificate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "Tenancy Act"). The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, has granted succession certificate vide proceedings No.B/ r250/ 19gg dated 21 .06.).990 for the said iands. euestioning the said proceedings, the petitioners in W.p.No.8652/2009 filed an appeal vide No.Ba l7 532 I 1990 under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, on the file of 6 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (appe llate authoriry) contending that Mr.Madugula Narasimha, respondents' lather has surrendered the tenancy rights oraliy. Disbelieving the version ol the petitioners, the appeliate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 2O.08.1997, confirming the proceedings No.B/1250/1988 dated 21.06. 1990 issued by the Tahsiidar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No.3546/ 1997 on the file of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated

25.08.2000 with the following observations: "From a pentsal of the record of the appellate authoitg I fttd that tlut counsel for the appellants has also submttted u.titten arguments. Ilence, it is not correct to state that no opportunitA utas giuen. The order of the Joint Collector is of speaking order giuing cogent reasons for upholding the order of tle Mandal Reuenue OJficer, Hagathnagar. I do not see anA reason warranting interference under Section 91 of the AP (Telanganct Area) Tenancg and Agianttural Lands Act, 1950. Reuision Petition ts accordinglg, dismissed. No order as to cosfs. "

12. The aforesaid order attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.O16332l2OOO hled by the petitioners, uide order dated 16. 10.200O.

13. It is further seen from the record that thereafter, the respondents Iiled an application under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, in respect of subject lands forming part of old Sy.Nos.26 and 27 corresponding to new Sy.Nos.251, 252 ar,d 253 for delivery of the possession claiming to be Protected Tenants. The Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.B/1611/2OOO d,ated 07.02.2004 allowed the said l 1 petition and ordered to restore the possession of lands to an extent of Ac. 10.00 gts in favour of respondents herein. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed appeal vide Case No.F2l22l3l2O04 and the respondents filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2219 12004 under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act on the file ol the Joint Collector. The appellate authority after verification of the records relating to nature and classilication of the lands in Sy.Nos.251 , 252 and 253 and the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, vide Lr.No.A2lSpl ./2006 dated 01.08.20O6 declared the nature of the lands as Inam lands and the same are vested in the State as per the provisions of the Inams Act, which came into force w.e.f 26.07.1955. It was further observed that in view of enactment of Inams Act, all rights including that of Protected Tenancy in respect of Inam lands stands extinguished and a Protected Tenant would be entitled for ORCs in terms of Section 7 of Inams Act and accordingly, vide orders dated 01.08.2OO6, the restoration orders -dated 07.O2.2OO4 of the Tahsildar was set aside. [n terms o[ the observations of the above referred order, it is stated that the respondents filed a petition under sub-rule (2) ol Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 for grant of ORCs in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 15-00 gts, Ac. 1-35 gts and Ac.5-35 gts in Sy.Nos.26 and 27 (old) corresponding to new Sy.Nos.25l, 252, and 253 situated at Abdullapur Village, Havathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 14 . The Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act, 1952 (VIII of 1952) was enacted to enfranchise certain classes of inams and to charge in Iieu of relinquishment of reversionary rights of Government and conferment of all proprietary rights on the Inamdars. The Government with a laudable object has thought it fit that while compensating the inamdar, the rights of the tenants should also be aiequately safeguarded. Keeping in view of the said object, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was enacted abolishing the inams w.e.f. 20.02.1955. Although inams were abolished and the lands vested with the Government by virtue of Section 3(1), the rights and interests of landlords and tenants mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) were preserved under Section 33, as sections 3(2Xd), (g), (n), and (i) did not come into force. The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, l95S was repealed by the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1967 (Act IX of 196Z). The erstwhile Aiedhra pradesh High Court struck down the Act lX of 196T as unconstitutional vide judgment dated 3 1 .03. 1970. Thereafter, rhe State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.947 Rev(G) dated 20. 10. 1973 and. in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 1(3) of the Inams Act VIII of 1955, a notification was published appointing 1st November, I973 as the date on which all the provisions of the Act except those mentioned in sub_ 9 Section(3)(a)ofSectionl,shallcomeintoforceinalltheDistrictsin Telangana Area of the State.

15. Section 2 of the Inams Act deals with 'De{initions' and sub- section (1) says that in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (a) xxx (b) the expression'date of uesting' when used - . (i) in sub'section (1), sub-section (2) tttith reference to clauses (a), (b),'ic), (e) and (fl and sub section (3) of Section 3 and in Section 'Si, ^"""" ihe date of puttlication of this Act in the Olficial Gazette; (Ii) elsettheri in this Act means the date appointed by the Gouemment under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1; bg the Nizam or (c) 'inam' means tand held und'er a gtft or grant 'by any Jagirdar, lalder of a Samsth,,r. or other competent grantor a"nd intiiuecl or cortfirmed. by u{rtue of muntakhab or other title deed, t1.)ith or Luithout the condition of seruice and coupled uith ttle remissiort of the tuhole or parl of the land reuenue thereon and entered as such in the village records qnd includes - .made (i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and '1ii1 tanas hetd as irnm by utrtue of long possession and entered as inom in the uillage records; Provid.ed thot in respect of fomter Jagir areas, the expression inam shatl not includ.e such lands as haue not been recognised as tmams bA Gouernme.nt alter the obolition of the Jagirs. o person hotdttg an inam or a- share therein' (i) 'inamdar' ^iont 'eitner for hts own benefit or in trust qnd includes tlle successor in interest of an rnttmdar. arLcl (ij where an itantlar is a minor or of unsound mind or an rdiot, lns lawful Enrdiorr: (ii) uthere c.it inamdar is a Joint Hindu familg, such Joint Hindu famitY. (e) 'kabize'e'khadim' rneans the hotder of inam land, olher than an inamdar, tulto has been in possession oJ such tand at the time of the orant of inant or has been tn continuous possession of such land for "not less than ttuelue qears before the d.ate of uesting and utho pays the inamdar ortly the lond reuenue (g) non protected tenant' means a tenont other than a pemanent tenont or a Prolected lenutll (h) 'pennanent tenant' means a person utho, from a date prior to l0th Juie, 1g5O, has been cuLtiuating the inam land. on a petmanent lease from the irLomdar uhether under an tnstrument or an oral agreement' -A) protected tenont' iteatTs the protected tenant as defned in the And,hrct Pradesh (Telanqana Area) Tenancg and Agianltural Lands Act,J950 4d XXI of I q50). -

16. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of Inams Act, all the inams stood abolished except those that were saved expressiy as provided under the Inams Act. Por the purpose of granting ORC, the following persons envisaged under Sections 4, 5, 6, T and B i.e., Inamdars, Kabiz-e-Khadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants, and non- protected tenants, were recognized as being eligible for grant of ORC under the Act. Section 9 deals with vesting of lands, on which buildings are there, in the persons who owned it immediately before the date of abolition. Section 10 grants powers to the Collector to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 are eligible to be registered as occupants.

17. A reading of the above provisions clearly sets out that the persons who are envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act alone are eligible for grant of ORC. The only condition precedent for grant of ORC to the persons enumerated under Sections 4 to B is that they should be in personal cultivation/possession of the said land as on the date of vesting.

18. In Smt. Kannantma us. Distrtct Collector, Rangaredd.gf , this Court placing reliance on the decision ol the Hon'ble Supreme u l99o (1) An.w.R.z22 \; j Court in State of Maharqshtra vs. Laxrnan Ambajia, has held the date of vesting as 01 .1 1.1973 for the purpose of granting ORC. The said decision u,as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in N.Sudershan Reddg us. Smt. Kannam,tna (deceased by LRsiB. The said law was realfirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in B.h.amender Reddg o. District Cottectors, at Para 55, has held as under: "From tlte aboue, it follolus that the releuant date for tlrc purpose of recognizing the occupancg ights under Section 4 to 8 of the Act is 1.11.1973. If, on that date, either the inamdar or the dtfferent categoies oJ'tenants are in posse.ssion of the land, they uould be entitled to seek gront of occupancg ights. On the facts of the present case, the Collector found that netther lhe successors-in-interest of the tnamdar nor lhe so called purchasers from the oiginal inamdar uere in possession of the inarn lands, even as on 2O.O7.1955. Therefore, the crytestiotl of theg betng ln possession of the inam propertg as on 011.1.1973 rloes not aise. Consequentlg, theg are not entitled for grant of occLtponcg ights under Secti<tn 4 of the Act."

19. This view has been . consistently upheld by several other judgments. A reading of the above decisions would reveal that the date of vesting for the purpose of granting ORC is O 1 . I 1 . 1973 and the said date of vesting holds good till date.

20. While the matter stood thus, the respondents' petition for grant of ORCs in respect of subject lands was taken on record by the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, at Hyderabad vide File No.J / 1865/2006. The 'AtR 197 t sc t8s9 t Rtn 199+ Ap I 16 ' toeslzy An.w.R. 84. t) notices as required in Form-ll of Inam Rules, 1955 were issued to the inamdars, petitioners and others interested in the subject matter' The Tribunal after verifying the records and certihed copies of the pahanies for the years lg73-74, 2OO3-O4,2004-05 and 2005-06 has observed that the respondents are in possession of the lands in Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts. It is further observed as per the records that the land in Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac'5-35 gts alone found to be in possession and occupation of respondents predecessors-in-interest (M. Ramaiah and M. Narsaiah) in the pahanies for the years lg73-74,20O3-O4,2004-05 and 2005-06 and they have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditions for grant of ORCs in terms of the notified date i.e, 01.11.1973. The Tribunal vide order d.ated 02.03.20O7 while allowing the claim of the respondents in respect of land to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts in Sy'No'253, negated the claim in respect of remaining extent. Aggrieved by the said orders, the writ petitioners filed appeal vide Case No'F1/ 100/2008 and the respondents hled appeal vide Case No.Fi/381ll2OOB and the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 28 'O2 '2OO9 disposed of the said appeals by setting aside the rejection of claim for issuance of ORCs with regard to lands in Sy.Nos.251 and 252, directed the original authoritSr to comply with the directions issued by the-then Joint collecror vide order dated o 1 .o8.2oo6 in File No.F2 12213 I 2OO4 andjpsue ORCs to the resPondents. e/ '/ ,l 7 i3

21. It is stated that after obtaining ORCs, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in W.P.No.8652 of 2009 executed sale deed vide document No.52 16/2007 dated 24.O7.2OO7 in favour of respondent No.8. Questioning the orders passed by the appellate authorit5r confirming the grant of ORCs in favour of respondents for the land in Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.8652/2009 on the file of this Court. On 27.O4.2OO9, this Court granted interim orders directing both parties to maintain status quo until further orders. Alleging that in violation of the said interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners fraudulently got mutated their names in the revenue records and changed the nature of the subject property by obtaining building permission, the respondents filed W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 arld 2923 of 2O23.

22. It is seen from the record that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.B652 ot 2OO9 and 3098 of 2024 are claiming ORCs in respect of subject property as successors-in-interest of original inamdar i.e, Mohd. Ismail Saheb. The petitioners / respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.2O93 of 2023 filed counter afficlavit in W.P.No.2093 of 2023 denying the right of petitioners in W.P.No.2093 of 2023 for grant of ownership certilicate under provisions of Tenancy Act and recording of their names as Protected Tenants/Tenants on the crucial date i.e, O1.11.1973. They have not disputed the issuance of impugned I 1rl proceedings by the Joint Collector or the consequential mutation of their names in revenue records

23. The respondents claiming that their ancestors are protected tenants and entitled to be registered as occupants filed an application for succession under the provisions of Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar issued Proceedings No.B/1250/1988 dated 21.06. 1990 recognizing the respondents as successors-in-in terest of the original Protected Tenant. Questioning the same, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8652 l2OO9 ar,d 3098 /2024 filed appeal on the file of Joint Collector, under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act vide appeal No.B.a1753211990 and the same was dismissed on 20.08.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CRP No.35a6/ 1977 on the file of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2000 on the observation that the Joint Collector in his speaking order has given cofent reasons for upholding the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar. Challenging the same, the petitioners l-rled S.L.P (C) No.O16332|2OOO on the lile of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide orders dated 16.10.20OO. The above facts would clearly establish that the orders passed by the Tahsildar granting succession in respect of subject lands in favour of the respondents (petitioners in W.P.Nos.2795312022 ar.d 292312023) in Case No.B/ 1250/ 1988 has l5 attained finality. The respondents herein filed an application on the file of the Tahsildar, seeking to restore possession of the subject lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and the same was allowed by the Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.B/ 161ll2OOO dated 07 .O2.2OO4 directing to restore the possession of lands to an extent of Ac. 10.00 gts in favour of respondents herein. Questioning the same, the petitioners hled appeal vide Case No.F2/221312OO4 and the respondents filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2219/2OO4 under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act on the lile of the Joint Collector (appellate authority). The appellate authority vide orde rs dated 01 .08.2006, by relying on the report of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.A2/Spl/2008 dated 01.08.20O6, allowed the appeal stating that the provisions of thc Tenancy Act are not applicable to the subject lands and claims of occupancy rights has to be determined as per the provisions of the I nams Act.

24. It is stated that in terms of aforesaid order, the respondents herein filed application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Inam Rules, 1955 for grant of ORCs in respect of subject lands. The competent authority after verification of the records and taking into consideration that as on the date of enforcement of provisions of the Inams Act i.e, 01.11.1973, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and their I I l6 predecessors-in-interest are in possession of Ac.5-35 gts in Sy.No.253 and accordingly, granted ORC in favour of respondents herein vide order dated O2.O3.2OO7 in File No.J/B6S/2OO6 and thereafter, the respondents have disposed the property in favour of respondent No.8 vide registered sale deed d,ated 20.O4.2007. As per the provisions of the Inams Act, the protected tenants and non- protected tenants are entitled for grant of ORC, from the date of vesting of the land under Section 37 of Tenancy Act. The facts would further establish that the tenancy rights of the respondents granted under Section 4O over the subject lands have attained finality on the dismissal of SLP (C) No.O16332|2OOO. As per the records, rhe petitioners have pleaded about the surrender of o. l t..rr.rcy under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, which was not accepted by the original and appellate authorities whiie passing an order in File No.Bal7532l1990 dated 20.08.1997. Contrary to the same, the petitioners are pleading that the respondents are not in possession of the subject lands as on the cruciai date i.e,01.11.1973. The said plea of the petitioners amounts to approbate and reprobate to suit their claim.

25. The doctrine of election and underlying doctrine of approbate and reprobate is a rule of equity. Where a person knowingly accrues the benefits of an instrument, he is estopped from denying the I I 7 17 validity or the binding effect of such instrument. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondents as protected tenants recognized by dismissal of revision, as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act, as such they are deemed to be in possession. In addition, as per the orders of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, in File No.J/ 1865/2006 dated 02.o3.2ooz the predecessors-in-interesr or the respondents i.e, M.Ramaiah and M.Narsaiah, were in actual possession as on O1.11.1973. Therefore the contention of the writ petitioners that the respondents are not in possession as on the crucial date i.e,01.11.1973 is not borne from the record and the decisions relied upon by them are distinguishable from the flacts and circumstances of the cases on hand. Accordingly, W.p.Nos.g652 of 2O09 and 3098 ol 2024 deserve to be dismissed.

26. W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023 are filed by rhe petitioners (unoff-rciar respondents in w.p.Nos.8 6s2 of 2oo9 and 3098 ol 2024) questioning the building permissions issued vide Proceedings No.ba/Bp/2a22 dated or.o4.2o22 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy.No.251 and also in respect of plot No. 131 admeasuring 22O Sq.yards, during the operation of stafus quo orders dated 27.O4_2OO7 passed by this Court in W.p.M.p.No 11338 of 2009 in W.p.No.8652 of 2OO9 and pending adjudication of validity or othena,ise of the orders d,ated 2g.02.2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide File No' F I / 38 1 I I 2OO8 and the mutation of entries in revenue records in favour of the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.8652 of 2OO9 and 3098 of 2024'

27. It is settled law that when a Court issues a status quo order, it mandates that existing state of affairs be maintained until further directions are issued. Actions taken in violation of such orders are considered illegal and without legal effect The Hon'ble Suprcme Court has consistently held that any act done in contravention of a status quo order is null and void'

28. ln Satgabrata Bisuas as' Kalgan Kurnar l(iskuro' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any act done in violation of the order of status quo is clearly illegal' All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal' In the instant case' this Court vide orders dated 27.O4.2009 in W.P.M'P'No l1338 of 2OO9 in W'P'No'8652 ol 2009 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 situated at Abdullapurmet Village' until further orders. It appears from the record that in violation of the stafirs quo orders d,ated 27 'O4 '2009 passed by this Court' the respondents have granted building permissions vide offici Procee ings No. 16SlBPl2022 dated 0l'04 2 O22 in respect of lands adm.r"L.i.,g Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy'No 251 and Plot No.131 admeasuring ro ( t9g4) 2 scc 266. t J 22O Sq.yards, ro clelear the claim of Writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2O93 of 2023.

29. For the aloresaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularit5z in the impugned order dated

28.O2.2OO9 passed in Case Nos.F1/ 10O/2OO8 and Fl/381 I I2OOB by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India. The claim of the respondent No.9 in W.P.No.B652l 20O9 is that it has purchased lands in Sy.Nos.25l and 252 and its intercst is limited to an extent of land in Sy.No.2S1. If that is so, il'any cnquiry is initiated in pursuance of the impugned order dated 28.O2.2OO9 passed in Case Nos.Fl/100/2008 and F1/3811l2OO8, it is left open to the respondent No.9 to agitate its grievances for the said lands, in accordance with law.

30. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.8652 of 2009 and 3098 of 2024 are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023 are allor:r'ed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL ASS TANT REGISTRAR E R To 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue and 2 J Administration Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Joint Collector, R.R. District, at Kongara Kalan Village lbrahimpatnam, Kongara Kalan, Telangana S01510. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy East Division) Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad. ^.,(d,U -

4. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI ALI FARAZ FAROOQUI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate (OPUC) B. One CC to SRI M.V.S.SURESH KUIMAR, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to SRI SRICHARAN TELAPROLU, Advocate (OPUC) 10.One CC to SRI C.KALYAN RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 1'1 .Two CD Copies v \ SA \ HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8652 OF 2009, 27953 0F 2022,2923 0F 2023 AND 3098 of 2024 1 HE SI4 /(' Y e 1 12 rr3 iiii5 ? c * DFSp.,Ti;Yl g) t t I I I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS NO.8652 0F 2009 AND 3098 0F 2024 AND ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS NO.27953 0F 2022 AND 2923 0F 2023 WTHOUT COSTS. @^{-' .afE&,