1. Chilkuri Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the cirr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the respondent No.5 not to alienate the schedule Ac.05.04 gts., in Sy.No.26 and Ac.02.19 gts., in Sy.No.27 village, Quthbullapur lt4andal, Medchal-lValkajgiri District, dtrr rmstances stated in may be pleased to land ad rreasuring f Pet Basheerabad ng the pendency of writ petition, in the interest of justrce. I.A.NO:2 OF 2023 Between Smt.B.Nandini Raju, W/o.Ramalinga Raju R/o.Jubilee Hills, Hyj rrabad. ...,PEflilONEF / sth RESPONDENT AND '1. Chilkuri Lakshmi, W/o.late Ho usewife. Chilkuri Narsimha, Aged bout 69 yrs., Occ-

2. Chilkuri Lakshman, S/o.late C.Narsimha, Aged about 44 yrs., Occ- Agriculture,

3. Chikuri Devender, S/o.late C.Narsimha, Aged about 39 yrs., Occ- Agriculture, 4. Chilkuri Naresh, S/o. late C.Narsimha, Aged about 37 years, Occ- Agriculture, All are R/o.H.No.3-4-46, (5-'1 and 5-2), Jeedimetla and Pet-Basheerabad Village, Quthbullapur It4andal, tr/edchal-Malkaigiri District. .....RESPONDENT/PETITION ER

5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Spl.Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. :

6. The District Collector, lr/edchal-l\,4alkalgiri District, District Collectorate Complex, Shamirpet-

7. The Addl.District Collector, tr/ledchal-[/lalkajgiri District, District Collectorate Complex, Shamirpet.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, tVlalkajgiri Division, tvledcha l-tt4alkajgiri District. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section '1 51 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 lnterim Order dated 19.08.2023 in W.P.No.'l 9745of 2023. Counsel for'the Petitioner: SRI B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 & 6 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Ms. PRATYUSHA BOPPANNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 10 : SRI K.RAVI MAHENDAR The Court made the following ORDER i I i , IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF 1 ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARA'I \NA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.l9 745 of 2O2 ) DATED: 18. 11.2025 Betwee n: Chilkuri Lakshnu & 3 others ...'etitioner AND 'l'hc State of Tcltingzrna, Rep. by its Spl. Chiel Slecre'i-rn', Revenuc Department, Secretariat, Hrderal;ad- and four others' lespondents ORDER: This WriL Pctition is file d to call lor lir rccords in case' Ncr.F'11 lg37 l2OD', dated 1O 05.2023, and quastr -he same as being iilegal, arbltran' ancl contrary to the provisions of the 'lelangan:L Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short'the Act 19i 5')' IIeard Sr-i B.Mahencler Redcly, learned Colt sel for petitioners' '). iearned Assislar-rt Governmenl Pleader for Rerrt I ue for re spondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6, Ms Pra[yusha Boppanna, ]c rrned Counsel lor respondent No.5 and Sri K.Ravi Mahenclar, learn: l'standing Counsel lur rc\polrdent NOs.ll tr.') 10. 2 :,.

3. Brief lacts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally great grandfather of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., Chrlkuri Balaiah u,as the Inamdar of tlte land admeasuring Acs.S _ 04 qts in S1..No.26 and Acs.2 _ 19 gts in Sy.No.27 of pet Basheerabad i,illage (hereinafter referred to as .subject landsJ and his name vvas also rccorded as .Inamdar, in the revenue records; that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 19S4_5S, the name oi Chilkuri Balaiah ri'as recorded as pattadar/Inamdar and the names of his sons Durgaiah. Chinna Lachaiah and Lachaiah were recorded as Hissaderrs; that in the pahanies for the years 1972_73 and l9Z3_74, the name of Chilkuri Narsimha was recorded as cultivator in the possessors column; that during the life time of Chilkuri Durgaiah and C h ilkuri Narsimha, they neither obtained the Occupancy Rights Ccrtifica te (for short ,ORC ) nor alienated the same to third parties. Ho,"r,cver, third partics are trying to encroach upon the subject lands ar.rcl therefore, the pedtioners approached respondent No.4 and submitted an application dated OI.t2.2O2I. for lssuance of ORC in respecl of subject lands; that respondent No.4 uideOrder dated 23.O7.2022 tn No.J / 645 / 2O2 1 , re.l.ected the application withour properly considering the provisions of the Act, with an observation that the subject lands have been mutated in the name of respondent No.S in the year 1985 and the said lands were converted into non_agriculturc rn f.996 and that petitioners were neither in occupation nor 3 cultivating tbe lancls, as such the same has to be onsidered under Section 9 ol thc Act

4. Ir is further avcrred thar aggrieved by he Order dated

23.O7 .2022, petirioners preferred an appeal befor: respondcnt No.2 uide casc No.Fl / 1937 12022 and the same was all('' .cd to respondent No.3 for adjudication; that respondent No.3 dis I issed the appeai uide impugned ()rder dated 10.05.2023, with arr observation tha[ Lhird par'Lie s are itL posscssion, pelitioners cannot tunr around and fall back on the provisions of the Act and furthcl rbserved that the subject lzrncls hai,e bcen converted lo non agricult ' 'al purpose and a lal,out \'\ras also approved by the Municip z Commissioner, Quthbullapur Municipality uide layout No. 1209i 02.09. 1996 ancl third partl' rights have been crt t tP2 lHl90, daLed ted. Aggrieved by the proce edings ,Cated 10.05.2023, presenl u'rit pe t .ion is filcd. Learned Counsel for petitioners would sub:l

5. are the legal heirs and successors ol the I I it that petitioners rmdar, who was personally cultivating lhe lands as on the rucial date i.e.,

01.11.1973, which is relevant for issuance ol ORC. He further submitled that conversior-r of lands to non-agriculll ral purpose in the year 1996 is immaterlal, since the status of landtr as on 01. 1 1. 1973 only has to bt: considered while adjudicating t issurance ol OltC. He further submitted that illl Le application for ' alienation made ;.r"' 4 without obtaining ORC is null and void and inoperative, in vicw of Full Bench Judgmenr dared 21. 11 2022 in w.p.No.913 0f 2002 ernd batcl-r. He also submitted that all inams have been abolished in thr: State of Andhra praclesh and Telangana as per the provisions of Section 4 to g of the A.p. (Telangana Area Inam Abolition Act, 1955). The persons who are in occupation and cultivating as on 07.11.1973 are only entitled for ORC and any third party or alleged purchasers from Inamdars are not entitled for ORC. He further submitted that no limitation has been prescribed under the Act, ibr submission of application lor ORC. therefore, the Orcler datcd 23.O2.2022, passecl bv respondent same in the 2ppgzl bv respondent No.3 uide Order dated IO .O5.2023, was unsustarnablc and the reasons recorded by the respondents are outside the scope of the Act, therefore, both the orders are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside ancl prayed to allow the writ petition. No.4 and confirming the 6 Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 by referring [o the counter, submitted that respondent No.5 had purchased the subject land under

06.11.797A lrom the mutation was also regrstered sale deed No.192g of I97g father of petitioners and his brothers sanctioned by the Deputy Tahsildar proceedings No.A/ 2 / ROR/89, daterl respondent No.5 21.08.1989 and the name of has been recorded in the revenue records. Shr: that the subject lands have been developed into further submitted I I I r l l I i I i 5 residential plots alld the layout was also approved : Commissioner, QrLthbullaptsr uide proceedings d: t F urlher, plors havc bcen alienated in favour of t i resiclential buitdings have comc up and thus, the ir I ' the MuniclPal :d O2.O9.1996. rd partics and ds are n,r morc agrrcultural lands ancl as such, the Act, 1955 has nc' rpplication. She lurther submitted rLtal rcspundent No 4 by consicicl i Lg the facts and circumstances of the case as rveil as provisions of tL t Act, has rightlY clismissed the application submitted by the petitionc t ; lor issuance of ORC and the Ordcr passed by the respondent No-4 by respondenl No.3 and petitioners failed trl point out any irregulantl, or lllegalitv rn the impugnecl Order tul [hus' the writ s rightly upheld petrtion is devoid rlf merits and is liable to be dismiss :d' In the light ol submissions made by the lerL red Counsel for 7. ' petitioners as well as learned Counsel for respond': rt No'5, the only point that arises for consideration rs whether petit r ners are entitled for issuance of C)ccupancy Rights Certificate in -1 spect of subject

8. Admittedly, the great grandfather ol pe titione t Nos.2 lo 4 is the original inamdar of the subject lands and subse'1 rently, the lands are devoived upon their sons i.e., father of the pe- and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that f: .ioner Nos.2 to 4 her' of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and his trrothers jointly executed the sal deed No. 1928 of E4-, I i 6 i978, dated O6.ILlg7g, alienating the subject lands in favour of respondent No.S, and the name of the respondent No.5 has also been mutated in the revenue rccords and the lands have been convertecl into residential plots and layout was also approved by euthbullapur Mu nicipalitl,.

9. Perusal of the Orrjer daLed 23.07.2022 passed by respondcnt No.4 would disclose that thc application submitted by the petitioners dated Oi.I2.2O2I u-as rejecred r.r,ith an observation that the subject lands u,ere alienated; that thc same were mutated in the name of respondent No.5; that the lands have been converted to non- agriculturar purpose: that the same urere developed into plotsl and that third party rights have been crcated ancl further, petitioners were not in possession and not cultivating the subject Iands The learned Counsel for petitioners pnncipally contended that while adjudicating the apprication for issuance of oRC, the status of lands as on 0 1 . I 1 .l9Z 3 has to be considered and the alienation made by the father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and his brothers in the year 197g, prior to obtaining ORC is non_est under law. 10 It is relevant to refer to Section 9(2) of the Act, 1955, which reads as under "9(2) Where an inam land has been conuerted. for ang purpose unconnected uith agicultu-, ;;""-;;;;;, oJ.such 1 Land shrtll lte entitled to keep the lancl prouk" d thal such ".onu.r"ion u)as not uoid or ill'egat under any lct 'it force'" it is also relevant to refer lo Seclion 24121 t i the Act' 1955' 11 ,.,.'hich reads as utrdcr: "2aQ) If ang questior-t aises whether any buiLdi'r *itnnin Z"ip" o7 Sectton 9 the same shall be prescnberl orihonty whose decision shall be Jitt'L 12. A reading of Section 2aQ\ ol the Act' 1955' question arises zrs lo \\'hetherr anv building or 1:r;-r scope of Sectior-r 9, lhe same shall be rclcrrerl t or land .lctlls z.,ferred to the mandates that if i i:rlls withtn the : the prescribed authority.

13. As per Rule 18(2) of the A P (T'A) Aboliti'r of Inams Rules' 1975, Special Tribunal has been designated as pr scribed authority uhder Section 2aQ) of the Act, 1955' Vide G C) l s'No' 1613' dated 13,12'|g75, Distric[ and Sessions Judges are cor: :ituted as Special Tnbunals' for the purposes of the Acl'

14. In the light of above, the question as to wh r her Iand has been converted lor any plrrpose other than agriculturr: has to be referred Lo Special Tribunal' i.e., District Judge' In the p :sent case' as per the report of Tahsildar as u'e1l as the Deputy Insp' ctor of Suwey' the subject land is a vacant land and no matenal is laced on record to sl-rou' that the land rvas being cultivated or that e same rvas under ._ lxtcupation of petitioners hcrein. It rs the specill conLention of the 8 unofficial respondents that the subject lands have been converted to non-agricurturar purpose and have been devel0ped rnto residentiar plots, theretorc, as per Section 9(2) and 24e) of the Acr, 1955. the same has to bc adjudicated b-r.a ,special Tribuna.l,.

15. It is relevant to Court in State oJ Ma was held as under:_ refer to the Judgment of the Hon,ble Apex harashtra as. I-axmcln AmbaJi,t wherein it 16 "i" i "Though the ina . . . As per t he oror., crucial date for " i,' l;, ; ! ;: o'" abolished, the ights of the . incLmdar o, ,.'r.o,ri'Jr'tlrnt" ",lo''i!'',t, K.odim are not extinquishei ond ( they ,r" oLL. ot. t tltsi). ,;:; ;:r;!'btrsl .Personat cuttiuirion os on oe entitled to occupancg ights under the A.,. o:4.n:, d;,;; ;;,:."iiii''Xio{,'r2" :;Li",Z,f ,,:.re qre tuo nghts is not correlated t""th;';-;;'^,' :1'::,'" get occupanca state. rt dectared. that ,t:: Tg!:i.:I.'":,,:s if inams rn the " i"i' ; :: :,i ; :, i2' :, *: f i:'; :;, ;[ '; : : 1"" f ,: In the light of the above decision of Hon,ble Apex Court, the the purpose of granting ORC is OI.1l.1gT3 Respondent No.3 by relyir-rg upon the Judgment of this Court in A.P.Panjabi Sabha, Hgderabad Vs. Joint Collector, Hgd.erabad,z and considering the events that have taken place subsequent to 01. 1 1.1923, rejected the appiication submitted by the petitioner for ORC on the ground that subject lands have been converted to non_ agricultural purposes, layout was approved and third party rights have been created, as on the date of application ' atn tgzt sc ISsq '2004 SCC Onlirre AI,689 i I i I I I I ! I 9

1.7 . Admitted ly, the lalher of petitioner Nos 2 to 4 I rd his brothe rs jou'rtlv exccuted rhc sale deed No- 1928 of 1978' c1z :d 05 1 1 1978' alienirting lhc sul-rjecL lands in lavour ol res londent No 5' Rcsponder-rl No.5 converled the subject lands int<> : :sidential plots and sold thc same to third parties lt is interest ' q io note LhaL pclitioners herein liled application for grant of ORC ; f[er lapse of 48 YE'ITS

18. lt is relcvanr to reler Lo the Judgment c I this Court tu W.A.No.969 of 2O12, dated 77'08'2012 betr"'t:c K'R' Shankar Singh Vs. The Presiding OJficer of the Industrkt Tribunal-cum' Labour Court, Godauo;rikho:ni, Karimnagar Di:;' ict' wherein it u'a S held :rs uudci:: "'fhe pinciple on uthiclt- the Court refuses re ground of laches or delag is that the nghts Zthers by the delag in filing the petition sho disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explctrttt delag, because Court should not harm innoce i theii ights hod emerged bg the deloy on the petitioner. ef on the tccnted to ld not be ion for the parties if rurt of the

19. It is also relevant to reler to the Judgme r of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cho.irman, State Bank of Indi' ' & Anr' u' M'J' 10 (' Jame*, whcrein thc cloctrine of acquiescence has been discussed and observed as hereunder: "39. ...... Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctine tuhich opplies tuhen a partg hauing a nght stands by and sees clealing in a manner inconsstent u_tith tlrut right, tuhile the act is it progress and after the uiolation is completed, uhich cond.uct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot aftenttards complain. In literal sense, the term q.cquiescence meq.ns silent 6tssent, tacit consent, concurrencet or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is etid.ence of an intention of a partg to abandon an equitable right and o,lso to d.enote conduct from which q.nother pd.rtg wiT be justiJied in inferring such dn intention. Acquiescence can be either direct tuith fu knoutledge and express approbation or indirect where a person hauing the ight to set aside the action stands bg and. sees another dealing in a monner inconsistent uith that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action miruoing occeptonce. HouLeuer, acquiescence will not applg if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence. " The position expound_ed as aboue certainly request consicleration uith reference to 7e facts of this case. In that regard ute u,,ill haue to consider tuhether there uas acquiescence on part of the respondent and if so, whether lapse of time, if anA, is of no importance or consequence, with reference to the factuat position, in uieu of the r 202 I Scc online l06l 11 exposition there under 'that acquiesceftce 7' ) 'uld not apptg if lapse of time is of no impttr I olce or consecYtence-'- 2A. The Doclrinc o1 Acquiescence is quite Cr ; Lncl from delay :rson. Given the dcstrolls the right of lhe ] Acquiesccnce "'ir[uall]' aforcsaid lcgal posrrion, indirect acquiesctnce pe titioners can be inferred till the filing of lhe a 1' Ncr,ertheless, acquiescence being in the natltr-e pctitioners lrom claiming violation oi the right o[ 1-' i on the Part of lication for ORC. of cstoPPel bars re presert Latio n It is pcrtincnt to nole that petitioners lilctl 2\. granl of ORC in thc ycar 202 1, which shows that pcriod of more than four decades between the year alie nation, anr-l 2021 i'e ', dale of application' r allowed multiple transactions to take place in res lands. F-urtl'rer, lather of petitioner Nos 2 to 4 anc executecl the registerecl sale deeds in favour o[ I he application for r the intt:rregnum ; 1978 i.c., datc of l petitioncrs have )ect of the subject ris brothers jointll' :spondent No 5 in she in turn developed tl-re i' nd into plots and parties and further, the srL :s have not been the doctrine oi U1e )'ear 1978 and alicnaled to third challenged before competent Civil Court' There ( re acquiescence squarely applies to the present castr ' '2'.2 IL rs the spccific case of the petitioncrs t I I t no limitatior-r has been prescribecl under the Act for submissior ol application for i 12 ('. { lssuance of ORC, therefore, respondent No.4 ought to have entertained the apprication submitted by rhem and rurther, the respondent No.3 committcd error in dismissing the appcal preferred by thc petitioners. It is relevant to note thal petrtioncrs are neither occupants nor vendors of the subject lancls and have not been declared as only legal heirs of original inamdar by any compe ten I Civil Court.

23. Admittcdly, petitione rs approached respondent No.4 for grant ol ORC in the year 2021, after rnore than 4 decades of alienation, u,hich clearly shows that petitioners have slept ovcr thc matter for long period and allowed multiple transactions to take place and have not explained the reasons for the inordina.t.e delay of four decades in approaching respondent No.3 lor granr of oRC. Further, the status of Lhe land has undergone a change and it may not be practical to put the clock back at a belated stage. Though, no hmitation has been prescribed for submission of application for issuance of ORC under the Act, 1955, the samc has [o be submittcd within a reasonable period and in view of inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 4 dccades in submitting the application for grant of ORC, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order.

24. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case ancl for the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed, however, for different reasons than assigned by respondent No.3 in thc: i npugncd Order Tl'rcr-c shaLl be no orclcr as to costs Miscellancous pet itlons pcndiug, if any, shali .; ittlcl closcrl. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.IJ GOWRI SHANKAR ASSII; 'ANT REGISTRAR \. $ecrroru oFFrcER . ---- --z To Hyderabad [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Sta ( of Telangana at 2. One CC to SRI B.IvIAHENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPU( ] 3. One CC to SRI K.RAVI IVAHENDAR, Advocate (OPUC;) 4. One CC to l\,,4s PRATYUSHA BOPPANNA, Advocate (C I UC) 5. Two CD Copies SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1 811112025 ORDER WP.No.19745 ot 2023 ilE S 1 ) ) [ 3 ![B 2026 * * DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. b