WRIT PETITION NO: 17114 OF 2008 v. 1. The Joint Collector

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D. PRAKASH REDDY, SEN 3R COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF SRI N. RAN 3A RAO Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI BHUKYA MANGILAL NAIK, GP FOR ENDOWMEI{ rS a Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI J.R. MANOHAR RAO S.C. FOR ENDOWME:I ITS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI A. SRINIVAS The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TEI"ANGANA AT TIYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. L7ll4 of 2OO8 DATE: f 3..L2.2o25 Between: Beetkuri Rajappa died per L.Rs. and 14 others The Joint Collector and 3 others AND ORDER ....Petitioners ....Respondents Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N.Ranga Rao appearing for the petitioners; Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for the Endowments appearing for rcspondent No.3; Sri A.Srinivas, learned counsel lbr respondeni No.5 and perused [he record.

2. This Writ Petition is hled with the following prayer: ....may be pleosed to issue a Wit, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or othenuise calling for the records of the Respondent No.1 in File No. FL/6183/2OOO doted 28.3.2008 and declore the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and ultra uires the prouisions of A.P. [Telengana Area] Abolition of Inams Act 1955 and declare the same o.s unenforceable bg restoing the order of the Second Respondent in ftle No. L/859/96 dated 1.8.2000 and be pleased to pass such otlrcr order or orders os this Honourable Court deems ft and proper in the circumstances of the case. ) ) 2 \;, Factual background and timeline ofevents ir. t he present writ petition. is instituted assailing the appellate order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the st respondent i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy l)istrict. The c z se pertains to the claim of ownership and occupancy rights cvt.t a substantial extent of land admeasuring Ac. 15.23 gts. in Sy.No.384 of Attapur r/iilage; that the subject land is a Dostttor rdhon Inam a personal grant and not an endowment in favour rf any temple; that petitioners were granted Occupancy Righ s Certificates (ORCs) in three rndependent proceedings betv'r en the vears 1987 and 1992 and that respondent No.1, in a r; egle appellate order, illegally anci mechanically cancelled a l three ORCs without adhering to due procedure and withorr adverting to material documentary evidence supporting t: :ir title and possession.

4. The dispute arises out of proceedings tr Lder the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolitlon of Inams Act, I9li i(hereinafter 1nams Act). The 2"a respondent, acting as the Primary Authorit5i under the Act, granted three separate C) lCs rn respect of different extents of land in Sy.No.384 of Attri )ur Village in favour of (i) Borra Danaiah for Ac.3.39 gts on 23.I i.1987, (ii) G. / 3 Laxmaiah for Ac.4.00 gts on 24 .Ol.l99l, and (iii) Beetkuri Rajappa and others for Ac.7 .24 gts on 13.03.1992.

5. An appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector questioning the ORC granted to G. Laxmaiah. By order dated 1I.12.1995, the l"t respondent set aside the order of the 2"d respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order of remand was chalienged before this Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. By order dated 01.10.1996, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2"d respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, specifically to determine the foundational issue as to whether the land constituted endowment property,

6. Pursuant to the said direction, the 2"d respondent undertook a comprehensive inquiry in File No.L/859/96. On consideration of the Sethwar, Pahanies, Vasool Baqui, and other primary revenue records, as well as the Muntaqab and the cerlificate issued by the Jagir Administration, the 2nd respondent, by a detailed order dated 01.08.2000, recorded the foliowing findings: i. the Sethwar described the land as "Dastugardhan Inam"; ii. the Muntaqab issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments did not relate to Sy.No.384; iii. the Jagir Administration certified that Sy.No.384 did not stand in the records of the Endowments Department; \__ 4 iv. Pahanies from 1960-61 to 1973-24 consis t ntly described the land as "Dastugardhan,,; and v. a communication of the Endowments De: 29.05.1989 specifically stated thar Sy.Nc included in its books. rrtment dated 384 r.t as not On the strength of this documentary evicir 1ce, the 2"d respondent held that the land was not endowme r property and consequently confirmed the three ORCs earlier gr z nted.

7. The 3.d respondent carried the matter in zU) real before the 1"t respondent. Bv the impugned order date cl I f .o3.2008, the lsr respondent reversed the findings of thc i' irespondent, placing reliance upon an 'extract register of Inarr ' produced by the Endowments Department and by reference to he Inams Act. The 1st respondent held that the land forme r part of the properties of Sri Seetha Ramachandra Sr,, rmy Temple, Rambagh, and consequently concluded thi I no private individual could be registered as an occupant. ( n that basis, the ORCs earlier granted were set aside and dr:r'l rrecl null and void. The said order is the subject matter of r:h rllenge in the present writ petition.

8. To appreciate the facts in its proper pe- pective, it is apposite to set out the timeline of events as noted Lereinabove: ') 5 S.No Date Event I 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 23-05- 1987 24-Ot-7991 r3-03-1992 tt-12-1995 o 1,10- 1996 ol 08-2000 28-03-2008 05-08 2008 o 1-09-2008 10 20-06-201 ), 11 r5-o3-2023 I2 21-tt-2023 RDO, Chevella grants ORC to Borra Danaiah for Ac. 3.39 guntas in Sy.No.384. RDO grants ORC to G. Laxma-ia_h for Ac. 4.00 guntas rn Sy.No.384. RDO grants ORC to Beetkuri Rajappa & others for Ac.7.24 guntas in Sy.No.384. Joint Collector sets aside ORC granted to G Laxmaiah and remands matter to RDO. High Court in W.P.No.2905/ 1996 remands matter to RDO to ascertarn whether land belongs to Endowments DepaJtment. Stu garclhan Inam and RDO concludes land rs Da confirms all three ORCs. Joint Collector-l reverses RDO's findings, declares land temple property, artd cancels ORCs. W.P.No. 17l14/2OOB frled chaJlengrng Joint Collector's order dated 28-03-2008. High Court directs status quo regarding possessron in W.P.M.P.No. 22219 I 2OO8. High Court dismisses vacate stay petition and makes status quo order absolute. High Court allows substitution of legal representatives of deceased petitioners (l.A.No. I ot 2022). High Court allows impleadment of Sri Seetha Ramacheurdra Swamy Devasthanam as respondent No.4 (l.A.No.I of 2023). 6 ) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

9. Learncd Senior Counsel lor' the petitionr r s assails the impugned order of the 1.t respondent datccl 2 LO3.2008 on rnultiple grounds. lt is contended, at the or lict, that the appellate order is cryptic, non-speaking and r cvoid of any reasoning, thereby disclosing a clear non-applir z tion of mind. According to the petitioners, 1"t respondent zrs exercised appellate jurisdiction in a manncr that is pen,cr-: r rrnrl contra,v to settled principles of administrative adjudication 1O. It is submitted that the order of the 2nd r,',j ,on(lent clated

01.08.2000, which stood revcrsed, rvas ilscll pas: ( I pr]rsuant to a specific remand made by this Court in W.P.Nr. 1905-> of 1996, directing a fresh determination on the questi(rr whether the land in Sy.No.384 constitutes endowment pr(,[ 'rtv. 'lh<: 2nd resporldent, in faithful compliance with the rern r rd rlirections, undertook an exhaustive inquiry and relie<l r pr)n primary, contemporaneous and unimpeachable revenue r ' :r>rd s sucrh as the Sethwar. Pahanics (1960-61 Lo 1973-741, \r sooi Baqui, a certihcate of the Jagir Administration, and even ,, rrcspondence from the Endowments Department itself darr r 2!).05. 1989, rvhich uniformly described the land as 'Dastugar'(l ran lnam' and specifically reflected that Sy.No.384 did not fir< plzice in the /' 7 endowment or lnam re gisters maintained by the temple authorities.

11. It is urged that [he lst respondent has ignored the entire corpus of this primary evidence and proceeded solely on the basis of a belatedly produced .extract register of Inam,, without examining its authenticity, antiquity, reliability, or its consistency with long-standing statutory and revenue records. The petitioncrs argue that such reliance on a solitary and disputed document, without reconciling it $.ith the established record, renders the order whollv unsustainable.

12. The petilioners fur[her contend that the lst respondent has misapplied the Inams Act, 1994, b1. presuming, rathe r than determining the jurisdictional condition precedent for its application, namely, that the land is ,hetd by or for the beneht of a charitable or religious institution,. The petitioners submit that this constitutes a funda mental error of law, as the very question remanded for determination was n,hether the property was temple land.

13. it is the case of the petitioner that the documents which did not form part of the original record, ought not to be considered by this Court in determining whether the appellate authority has properly exercised jurisdiction. i i u 8 L4. It is thus submitted that an appellate r r not engage with tl-re findings of the primary a, ler which does :hori[y, assigns no reasons, and fails tc esiablish a rational rrr r us between the evidence and conclusion is arbitrary, violates t ie principles of natural justice, anC is liable t-o be set aside. Subrnissions on behalf of the respondents 15. The learned Government pleader subn rcspondent's order is in strlct conformity u i 1 mandate under the Inams Act; that once th r rvhich is a statutory record maintained ur r Abolition rcgime reflects tl-re land as bclongin5 institution, no private individual can be re: occupant, and any ORC granLed earlier becomcs 16. It is argued that the .extract register of Iri bl the appeilate aurhorify is a statutorily mainr. carrying a presumption of corrcctness, which :lt revenue entries such as pahanies or other frsc intended to determine title or tenure. A<:i:, t that the 1sr the sta tuiory Inam R(tgiste r er the Inams to a religious rgnised as an 'oid ab initio. m' relied upon ned docr.rmctrt st prcvail over rl records not rdrng to the respondents, the appellate authority, being re powers of re-appreciation, was entitled to p- sted with lull fer the Inam Register over other revenue material. 9 L7. The respondents further submit that the description of the land as 'Dastugardhan lnam' does not ipso facto negate the possibility of its being a temple service Inam, and many service Inams historically granted for temple obligations are classihed similarly. Respondents assert that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the land is not temple property, particularly when the statutory Inam extract indicates otherwise.

18. lt is further contended that the Joint Collcctor has only corrected an erroneous and lcgally unsustainablc order of the RDO, and that the impugned order is a valid and reasoned exercise of statutory appellate power.

19. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged. Cousideration b this Court

20. It is pertinenl to note that thc scope of Judicial review under Article 226 of tlne Constitution in matters involving quasi- judicial determinations is well-settled. While this Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum, it is nevertheless empowered and indeed obligated to interfcre, where the impugned order suffers from perversity, non-consideration of relevant material, misapplication of statutory provlslons, or '/. t0 absence of cogent and discernible reasoning. t rereby violating the principles of naturaljustice.

21. [t is a settled law that an appellate authr -ity discharging corrt:cLive jurisdiction must apply its mind to r I . linclings of the primary authority and, if it proposes to overtLrrr those lindings, must assign clear, reasoned, and evidence-br I ed grounds for doing so. A reversal of a detailed fact-irndin I order, u,iLhout indePendent analysis demonstrating the it i,-mit1, in the reasoning ttf tl'rc primary authority, renders tlt. :rppcllatc. order legally deficienl.

22. Thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mad.hu sud.an Dq.s u. Naraganibair, l-ras observed as under t1 s a matter of laut if the r

8. ..... The pinciple is on.e of practice and gout,t ts the ueight to be giuen to a fnding of fact bg the tial ccu t There is, of course no doubt th,at praisal of the e uidence bu the tial courl suffers from a mtLte . tI inequlaitu .eadinq of the or is based on i nadmissibte euidence or on a ntl : euidence or on conlec tures and sunnises the a1 .,llate courl is entitled to inter'fere uith the findinq of fact. Our attention has been drau.l hg the respondents to thc t ;tatic Sk,am Na.uigation Co. Ltd. u. Sub,Lt. Arabinda Chakra ., uti IAIR ) 959 5C 597 : 1959 Supp I SCR 979 : j959 SCJ ,\' ;l but notltitTg said therein. detracts, in our opinion, from the ., Llidity of the proposition enunciated here. L

23. In the pre sent case, a comparative scrutr r y of the orders of thc 2na respondent dated 01.0g.2000 and th.r 1sr respondent (entn.t sis supplied) ' (1983) 1 scc/J5 dated 28.03.2OO8 reveals a manifest and material departure from this settled legal standard, which is as foliows: Findines of the 2nd re spondent: The order of the 2"a respondent datcd O 1.08.2O00 is the product of a comprehensive fact_finding inquiry undertaken pursuant to a remand direction issued by lhis Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. The 2"d respondent examined a consistent chain of primary and contemporaneous records spanning several decades, including:

11. iii. iv. v. the Sethwar, describing the land as ,Dastugardhan Inam', Pahanies from 1960-61 to 1973-74, the Vasool Baqui, a certificate of the Jagir Administration, and the Muntaqab and an ofllcial communication ol the Endowments Department dated 29.OS.lggg, expressiy stating that Sy.No.384 is not entered in the temple records. These documents collectively supported the conclusion that the subject land was not endowment property. The reasoning is sequential, supported by verifiable material, and directly responslve to the specific jurisdictional question remitted bv this Court. The relevant portion of order dated 01.0g.200O of the 2nd respondent is hereby extracted for the ready reference: In uieu-t of the discussions and also compromise arriued betueen the parttes and since tLrc land is not recorded in Endotument Register and also does not contain in the \ E t2 \ Munthakhab issued bg the Endoutment Deparr reason to interfere uith the orders passed bg t\ ,file No.L/661/87, L/ 1556/90 and L/4825/91 dilferent persorls in respect of Sg /\rr adrnectsuing 15 23 Acs. and the same ore her: 7'his order is subject to the prouisions of U.D. t{\ Furlher thls order does not dls-entitle t4 Departntent from. Jilinq eppeal before the comn: tI/ s 24 of the Abolitton of Inams Act, 1955. .ent, I see no s Tribuna[ in in fauour of 184, totaLLg tt1 cctnf.rmed. ;R)Act, 1976. Endowmettt anthontA "nt Findings of the 1st respondent: The impuq .t td order dated

28.03.2008 stands in stark conlrast. The 1st re; roncle nl has not analysed the e xtcnsive evidencc relied u f ( n l)y thr: 2nd rcspondcnt. The order does not disclose how o: wh].the factual findings recordcd by the 2"d respondent r ere erroneous. Irrstead, the appellate authority has rested ils : rtirt: conclusion on a srnqle document styled as an ,extract - gister of lnam, furnished by thc Endowments department, \^r]t rout discussing its origin, authenticity, evidentiary value, or : rnsistency rvith the older and more authoritative records fornr lg t he basis of lhe 2"d respondenl's deternrination. This omiss ( n antounts to a failure to consider relevant material and vitiatr:s he order. Thc relevant portion of order dated 2g.Oj 2O0g of the 1st respondcnt is hcrcby extracted for the ready ref:.ence: On pentsal of the extract register of Inam anc )atta Lands of Institutions of Hgderabod & Ranga Reddg Dis rict lurnkhed bg the AssistanL Commisstoner of End.otumertt s is Jbund. that the land beaing Sg.No.384 measuring 15-23 yt:s situated at Attapur uillage Rojendran.agar Mandal i.s recortt.t d in the name of Si l?anutchan.draji Ragutan (Rambogh). l3 It is clear that the lands in question ore temple lands belonging to of Si Ramachandroji Baguan (RambagL In the light of the aboue cited prouiso to Section 4 (1) of the A.P. (7.A.) Abolition of Inoms Act 1955, it is not permissible to register onA person as on occupant in respect of Inams held by chaitable and religious institutions. Further, tf ang person is registered as an occllpont in respect of such lands, such ct registration is null and uoid. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is null and uoid. The Occupancy Rights Certificate issued to the respondents in respect of temple londs has no legal effect. Hence, the impugned proceedtngs l/859/ 1996 dated 01 08 20OO granting Ocaqancy Rights Certificate to respondents in Sy.Nos.384 meosuring Ac.15-23 gts situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar MandaL ts hereby set aside. Accordingly the ctppeal is disposed of.

24. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order stands vitiated by clear perversity. The appellate authoricy has ignored a substantial corpus of primary and contemporaneous evidence forming [he foundation of the 2nd respondent's determination, has failed to engage with or even advert Lo the reasoning recorded by Lhe primary authority, and has rested its conclusion solely upon a solitary document whosc authenticity and evidentiary worth were never examined. The order contains no analytical basis for displacing the well- reasoned hndings of the 2nd respondent. An order suffering from such deficiencies cannot be regarded as a valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The absence of a reasoned adjudication \ strikes at the root of procedural fairness el cl r.iolatcs the principles ol rraLural justicc. Conclusion 25" For thc loregoing reasotls, the Writ pi,t ir on is allowed. The impugncd ordcr, dated 28.03.2008 passl:rl lty responclent No.1 is here bv se t aside. Thc matter is remanri,: I to responclent No. I for a fre sh adjr-rdication. Whilc doing so. r rsponderrt No.1 shall unde rtarke a compreher-rsive reconsidcratio . of fhe ntatter, expressly adclressing the findings re<:ot c ed and the docuntenlarl' cvidcncc relied upon by respor.rc i nt No.2 in his order datcd 01.08.2000. A rcasoned and speaki I ; order sl-rall be passed after exlending a reersonable opportlrnir\ rf hcaring to all conccrned. 'l'lte entirc,ercrcisc shall be complct: l. expeclit iously and preferabl_v vrithin a period ol eight (8) u,eeks rom the rlate of rcceipt of a copv of this order. The order oi : talu.s quo with rcspcct to possessior-r granted by this Court ,n O l.O9.2OOg, sl'rall continuc until a flnal order is passed by r e ;pondent No.l. There shall br' no ordcr as lo costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions p(ir r( ing if anv shall stand closecl ./ That the Rule Nisi has been made absolute as stated abo\4 . Witness the HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APAREST KUMAR SINGH, on this Friday, the Twelfth Day of December, Two Thousand a rd Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// t / P. PONNA KRISHNA ,,--- S STANT REGETRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. 11 L.R. Copies One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M (For His LordshiP's Kind Perds@l) lllOHIUDDIN 5330' D i stri ct' P ri m a ry "8i'il?'Ifu ^Ylg?,, 2 The Under Secretary' Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company - Affairs, New Delhr' a The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court " eultoings' Hyderabao 6^rr" nicr;'f tAooellate Authority Under sec' - U""i."il:'f8l'?flfli h$il]Sfi 5:#X'3)i$1'blt'* ' H?.*t)",;ffi l;"i"fpir"il ift 6 The Assistant Commlssioner' Endowments ' ; i#;d#*,*r*t *:y, HJ.?;"s,'.ll?i:'ry':flil:3" 8. One CC to SRI N RANGA RAO' Advocate [OPUC] o Two CCs to GP for Revenue' High Court for the State of Telangana at the state or rerangana at Endowments '"^ :":-i:r 1, i*t;ffir 1 1 . One CC to SRI J'R' MANOHAR RAO' S.C' for Endowments [OPUC] 1Z.OneCC to SRI A' SRINIVAS' Advocate [OPUCI 13.Two CD CoPies Ranga Reddy District and Medak A"apur (V I age) ' MP LS 4/ \ / HIGH COURT I I o O ,.1 ^,.. I DAI-iD:1211212025 ,.) {t' si4 /6: 1t l; l //t .l.ri\ ,l I )i -) ORDER f / WP.No 17114 of 2008 ) ALLOWING THE !'I'RIT PETITION WIl HOUT COSTS 3-b \U