The High Court · 2025

petition under nrtiSle 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings in Case No.F1194512023 dated 03'10-2023 under Section 24 of the A'P' (T'A') Abolition of lnams Act, 19.55;'s6tting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.J/1006412015 dated 21-01- 2023 in favour of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same' lA 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 grant interim suspension of proceedings in case No.F1194512023 dated 03-10- 2023 of the respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above writ Petition lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ#nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the following additional material papers in W'P No 30178 of 2023 (1) a copy of Khasra pahanieC't954-55, (2) A Copy of Chessala Pahani 1955' 1956' 1957 and 1958 --? lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Between: \ I

2. aJ

4. 5 6 Rarnidi Su,anl.r' Itcclclv S/o. [-atc Bhoji Rcddy Agcd abottt (rl{ lciu's, Occ:Agriculturc RJo. I{.No.6-10. Adibatla Village Ibrahirnpzrtnant N{z,utclal. l{anga t{eddy [)istrict. Ramidi ltanr l{cddv S;o. Late Bal Rcddy Aged about 70 r.cars. Occ: Agriculturc R/o. I I.No. 5- l() ,'\tlibrttla Villagc Ibrahinrpatrrartt N{antlal- [ttrnga ltcddy' l)istrict Ramidi Mnltctttlcr- I(cclcll' Si<t. l'arshuram Redd;, Aged aborrt 50 r c:ars. ()cc:Agricttlture R/o I I.No:4-.1-i. .\tlihatla Villagc lbrahirnpatrtartr Nlzrrtclit[. Rangzr [icdd1' District. Ranridi Necliittttrtit \\'.o. []hupal ltedcllr Aged about 72 r cars. Occ:l'lotrscu'if'e R/o l).No.9-7-I()8 l:lirt No.-10I Sri Krishna Nilavartt Apts. Marr,rti Nagar Hyderabacl. Ranridi I)rabhak:rr' [{etld.r' S/o. .langa I{edd"t' Aged ab<lut 43 _r,car-s. Occ:llusincss R/o I I.No.2-7-i. Aditratla Villagc Ibrahirnpatnarn Martclal- Itanga Rcddv District Rallagudcrn l)irrsltarr l(cclcl-v Sio. Jangzr Recldl" Agcd aborrt (r5 _i'cars. ()cc: Aqriculturc IVo. I[.No: {-91. Aclilratla Villtrec Ibrahirnpirtnzrnr N4anclal. [{art-ea Redd-t' District , --aI , I \ b R#.{4 iirii . 'Itli*:+ ,.",i .J .,iif, l( 9 I0 G @ 9 H- Agriarrurre 7 . Rarnidi Narsirnha ltedcly S/<1. Late Bal Recldv Aeed abour 5g years, O...a-e,;;ft,,.. IVo [[.No.6_7. Adibatta VillJse I b ra h i nr p a r n a nr Man,l. I, R;;_sT Rc ct cl r, [) i s r r. i c t ItallagLrclcrn Karrralarnma W/o. Latc Ual RecJclr Agcd aboul 76 1,cars. Occ: [{or_rsevvifb I{/o. l{ No: 6_40, Aclibarla Villase IbrahinrpaLnanr Manaal, ttanga*R.Od, Disrricr Itallagudem l{am Reddy S/o. Lare Bal Rcddv A,qed atrout 45 vea.. ri^^. n - .]^" *,o r r N,: 6_401liXl;,1,'j Ihr.zr'irrr,arrrar, rVlarrctat. Ra,ga'it"OO, Di.srr.ict. [{allirgurlenr I(rishna Rcdcly S/o. Laxrna Rcdclv Agcd abour 50 -r,,ears. O..,ig.i.,,l-u,r" I.No.6-.1, Adibatla vitlagc f().. J I . r'rh i r,, ; r r r r, r r r Man,ta t, tt onfut ite acrl, I) i s r ri c t. I(allagudcnr Vcnkat Reddy S/o. Laxma Rccldv, aboLrr 47 year.s, O.",ag.i.J;;; ^'""", 1au.d R/o f-[.No.6_4, Adibatla Viilale lhri1l11,u,.,,,tnarn Manclal, Ranga Reddy, District. Itiurridi .lzr-r.i11,g.., ttcclcly S/o. Ranga Redd1, u,, Agcd about 43 years, O... grrin.'r, Il,,o. 5-l I. Aclibatla Villagc Ibrahirrrpatnerrrr Mandal, ftanga Reddy, t)istricr. Itarrridi llhitrathi W/o. Ranga Reddy Agcd atrour 59 years, O.c,I-lous.*if" R/o. l{.i1s: .i- I l. Aclibatla Village Ibnrhirnpatnarn Mandal, Ranga Redd,r, District. Ranricli Bal ltcdd,v S/o. Anji Reddy A-qccl.aboLrt 49 years. Occ: Agricqlturc fl:,11_y,,-i lDralrrnpat.rrnr 75, Adibarta viila"ge Mantrar. Ra,ga Redcr,v. District. 2 I:1. l4 &=t=:ffi-i:--"3StL (- A 1._ F @ .? i l5 l6 Ramidi iv{ohan tteddy S/o. Yadi Reddy' Aged atrout 50 years. Occ:Agricttlture iUo. H.No: 6-.19. Adibatlzt Villaqc Ibrahimpatnatn Mandal. I{arrga [{cddy Distlict Ramidi Pushllanlrna Wio. Lrttc -latrqa l(cddy' Aged about 83 1'cars. Occ. [louscr'r'i[t R/o. H.No:2-J3, Adibatla Viilagc .lbrahimpatnattt Mandal. [{anga l{cddt' I)istrict'

17. Rarnidi I larshavarclhan Rccltly S/o. L.ate ltanridi Ayil Reddy '/ Aged abor.rt 4l 1'cars. Occ. Iltrsiness tVo. I{.No: 5- 12- Aclitratla Villag,c lbrahinr;latnattt N'latttlal- Iianga Iictldl' I )istrict' .. . Pctitioners / I{csponclcnts 5, ttl Sf-K, to ?2,24, 29 to I l, 33 and 34 And Yedati Ptcethlrtrt S/o. [.atc Y-Strclltarsltarl Aged atrouL rtrajor R/o. H.No: 3-5- 1093120 Naral,an gtrda. [ [1'dcrabad - <-' C.P.Sunitha Wio. C.l'-l{atlrtrltr Aged about nra.lor R/o. l-l.Nrr: 3-5- I 093,'20 Narayangucla. I h dcrlrbacl. , I Darjilla Sheclit l(cdcly W/o- l)-Mancrj l{cdd1 Aged about nttrior R/o. I{.No: 3-5- 1093120 Narayarreuda. l-lvdcrabacl. ... l{csporlclents / S/rit Petitioners -f'' The Prl. Secrcrtarv Rcvenue [)e1ltt'trticut. Govt. ol"l clangana Flydcrabiid T'he Atltlitiortirl ('ollcctor (Itevcntre ) [{anga I{r'dcl1 I )istrict. I 2 3 4 5 ,/-> <T- I ,'.',,',il'j ffi ,15,'J lH;' The T,r..^,, , o',*1ft;iit,lil:limparnarn J Manct at (t 7 ' g. '"trttKolgiri Disrricr - s00 076 rap u rar r r c o r o, 11, .Iuknr.i Aged,iff,,::: S./o' Mattaiart ly;;jj,y ,,,; S"., u, jl.l]_u^1, ins Co I o rry, bad --"tiiir'|fl' Alwat ,iTi;,occ: Business u n,. r, ecrd;, t0. Brrkka sn; r,,,.,.... ... A-eed .,,#'.,JY'.lro. Roru Ruo s. o.rao,.,, ,"1Y, I ;, i;l ;i ;kffi ir,:.:, J:tt r.; ;iip,:ilt. , N n c< r, i,;:,i ;;,1.;.,11,);; ii; fllha p:I ffi yiilii 5::lilt:#n,a Reddv rbrarr irnpai;; ffi:ili x:li_,.,,leddy Distncr. -' " "' ",, I [:li;%:.I;i fI *::g, ,Y;j,l;,il:,r;!,,;:,,!i:,Ragh,u",l.rnp,ovee f;.f,;,:,ff r I t. ftattagu.l"n, c'r'nY ^";ifl'rr,yi:; ff':y**''Y:i" ,fl:;,:t.il: ft:i#Iili#:1,,,ffii, i fricr _ 500 076 t2 I] I a'-' v{ t4. Rallagudern Narsirnha Reddy S/o. [-ate IJal Redd.v Aged about 58 years. Occ: Busincss R/o. Il.No : 4-13120, l)okalavara C)olont Manikondzr, Gandipct Manclal Ranga Redd."' [)istrict. Ramidi Pratap l{eddy S/o. [,ate Janga llcdcly' Agcd about 8l years. Occ: Agriculturc R/o. H.No: 5- 13, Adibatla Village Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Recldy I)istrict

16. Ramidi Shyantsunder Reddy S/o. Srvarnl, Itcddy Aged about 36 years: Occ:Agrictrlturc R/o.l{.No.6- I 0. Adibatla Villagc Ibrahimpatnttnt Manclal, Itansa Rcdth I )istrict. t7 l8 Ramidi Madhusudhan Reddv S/o. Su'arn1' Reddv Aged abor"rt 40 years. Occ:Busincrss R/o.FI.N0.6- I 0. Adibatla ViIlage Ibrahinrpatnanr Mandal. ltanga Rcdrll, I)istrict. Surabhi Shilpa W/o. Ramgopal ltao Aged about 38 years. Occ: Pvt.Ernplol,ee R/o. H.No . l-7-100142. Opp: Stll I Rtrrrr Nasar' Musheerabad. I lyderabad - 44.

19. Ramidi Narsimha Reddv S/o. Yadi Rcclclr' Aged about 67 ,r,ears. Occ:Agriculturc R/o.t{.No. I 6-374.Sri Sri [ lonres.Ahnassrrdzr Balapur Manclal, Ranga Rcdd1,' District I 20 2t G.Akhilesh S/o. Karunzrkar Rao Aged about 40 ;,ears, Occ. l'vt.Entplo,r'ec IVo. H.No: 1-5- 13312,1" fioor, Medhini l'arzrclise-r'' Road -no.4, Alu,zrl. Mcdchal - Malka.igiri l)istrict. Ramidi Shamsundar Redd-v S/o. [-ate Rarnidi Ar il l{cdcl.r' Aged about 3ti ycars, Occ: z\griculturc. R/o. H. No. j-12. Adibatla Villagc, Ibrahinrpatnanr Mandal. Ranga Rcdd,v Districl. ...Itcsporrdcnts / I(csponclents -o K J--l\ I i' I i ! I ! :9 I ? o) <_- 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 dated 8-11-2023 in W.P.No.30178 of 2023 in the interest of justice Counselfor the Petitioners: SRl. C. RAGHU SENIOR COUNSEL REp SRI L. RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: GP FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to35: sRl KorHA JANARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER , HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITI ON No.30l78 of 2023 ORDERz {- This Writ Petition is filed to issue writ of Mandarnu.s declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings in case No.F llg45l2o23, dated 03.10.2023, under Section 24 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (fbr shoft 'the Act 1955'), setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certil-rcztte issued by respondent No.3, vide proceedings No. J/i 0064,/1015, dated 2l .0 I .2023, in f'avour of petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act 1955, and consequently, to set aside the sanre.

2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri L.Ravinder, learned counsel-on-record for petitiorlers, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue tbr respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri Janardhan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35.

3. Rrief facts of the case, as averred in the writ affldavit, are that the lands admeasuring Acs.21-05 gts forming part of Sy.No.620, situated at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnarn Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, are inam lands; that Respondent No.3 vide proceedings Nos. 2 LNA, J tltP.No.30l78 of 2023 Il7l2lr979 dated 3 r.08. r97g, Jr3r6grrggl, dated 13.02.rggz, Il1344/1993, dared 16.09. tgg3, J/734t/Lggz dated L6.og.Lgg3 and Jll53ll992 dated 27-03-rggz, issued occupancy Rights certificares (oRC) in favour of Kore Narayana, Ramidi Ram Reddy, Gaddam Narsimha Reddy, Ramidi Janga Reddy and R.Sreeram Reddy respectiveiv, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.lg-36 gts; that the balance extent of Acs.2-09 gts belongs to late father of petitioners, as such, the petitioners made an application to respondent No.3 for issuance of occupancy Rights certificate in respect of rand admeasuring Acs.2-09 gts and the same was taken up as case No.J/10064/2015.

4. It is further aveffed that respondent No.3, after due enquiry, issued notice to respondent Nos.5 to 35 herein and also calred for a ., report from the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar submitted repo rt vide letter No.B/972/2014, dated 09.07.2014, staring that major parr of Sy.No.620 is covered by houses and Hanuman Temple and only a small extent of land is lying vacant; that as there was ambiguity in the said report, the land was surveyed by the Deputy Inspector of survey and as per his report, dated 09.01 .2023,,land to an extent of Acs.2-04 -) I-.Y.4, J ll" I>..\'l o- 30 I 7 B of 202 3 gts is vacant land and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple; and basing on the said report, respondent No.3 issued Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners in respect of Acs.2-04 gts vide proceedings dated 21.01.2023

5. Aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 21.01.2023, respondent Nos.5 to 35 preferred appeal before respondent No.2 vide case No.F1194512023, who vide proceedings, dated 03.10.2023, allowed the appeal setting aside the proceedings dated 21.01.2023, with an observation that issuance of Occupancy Rights Cenificate in respect of non-agricultural lands is govemed by Section 9 of the Act, 1955 and as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 1955, the same has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunals. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 03.10.2023, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the report dated 09.01 .2023 of the Deputy [nspector of Survey, an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is vacant and the petitioners were in possession thereof and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple and therefore, respondent No.3, by duly taking rnto consideration the ground reality and basing upon the report of the 4 LNA, J tYP.No.30l78 of 2023 Deputy Inspector of Survey, has rightly passed the order issuing Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect ol vacant land admeasuring Acs.2-04 gts, in favour of petitioners, however, respondent No.2, without properly appreciating the facts and the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, came to an erroneous conclusion that an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is being used for community development such as, Hanuman Temple and village School. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has erroneously referred to Section 9 of the Act, 1955, though the same has no application, as the subject land is a vacant land. He fumher submitted that respondent No.2 misinterpreted the judgment of the erstwhile High court of A.P. in A.P.Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad Vs. Joint Collector, Hycleroborl,' while allowing the appeal and therefore, the impugned Order passed by respondent ,s No.2 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, the same is unsustainable and finally, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 would submit that respondent No.3 has erroneously allowed the application filed by the petitioners without considering the fact that the subject ' zoo+ 1s; ALD 644 5 LIiA, J It1'jtYo.30l78 of 2023 land was not being cultivated and it is no more an agricultural land and fufther, the same is covered by houses, school and temple. He further submittecl that as the subject land is no more an agricultural land, the issue has to be decided by Special Tribunals under Section 9 of the Act, 1955. He also submitted that to consider the application of petitioners filed for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certifrcate, the subject lands ought to have been under cultivation and in occupation of the petitioners. In the present case, admittedly, the lands are not being cultivated and in fact, put to non-agricultural use, therefore, respondent No.2, on proper appreciation of facts, has rightly allowed the appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well- reasoned order passed by respondent No.2 and finally. prayed to t; dismiss the writ petition.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel fbr respondent Nos.5 to 35 relied upon the following judgments; l) Choma Narosimha Reddy and another Vs. Joint Collector, Ronga Retldy and ors2 2) Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Anclhro Prodesh dated 2 7.04. I 993 in l4t.A.No.600/1987 izeoz (2) Ar-D 28 6 LNA, J Il/P.No.30178 of 2023 , sontosh Kumar shivagonda potil ond ors vs. Balasaheb Thukaram Shevole and ors3

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 further submitted that a Division Bench of this court in B.Laxmi (cliect), per her LRs vs. Government of Andhro prodesh,a held that actual possession of land and personal cultivation as on 01.1r .rg73 is a sine quo non for grant of ORC.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, as per the Pahanies of the year 1973-74,the names of Govindu, Janaiah, Vishwanatham and y.sudharshan-father of petitioners have been recorded as Pattadars/Inamdars and the names ol. Sriram Reddy, Narayan Reddy, venkat Reddy and Kore Narayana have been recorded as occupants. Thus, it is clear that as on the%rucial date i.e.,

01.11-1973, the ancestors of unofficial respondents were in actuar possession. Further, as per the statement of futher of the petitioners i.e., Y.Sudharshan before RDo, he is 1/4'h share holder of the land in Sy.No.620 along with other survey numbers and an extent of Acs.2 - 00 gts is being utilized for community development, such as Hanuman Temple, village School, etc. Thus, it is evident that an :1zdD;*scc:sz 4 2024 (2) ALT 330 (DB) I 7 LNA, J tVP.No.30l78 of 202 j extent of Acs.2-.00 gts is being used for non-agricultural purpose and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certiticate in respect of the subject land-

11. tn the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for unofficial respondents, the points that arise for consideration are:- (l)whether the uncestor of the petitioners i.e., their fother- Y.sudhurshsn was in occupation or possession of the subject land os on the crucial date, i.e-, on 01.11.1973, thereby entitling petitioners for grant of Occupancy Rights CertiJicate? (2) If so, respondent No.2 wos iustified in setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certiftcate issued by resfiondent No'3 in fovour of the petitioners, by referring to sections 9 and 24(2) oJ'the Act, 1955. (3) To n,hot relieJ?

12. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.18- 36 gts, forming paft of Sy.No.620, under different proceedings in the years 1979, 1992 and l993,to different individuals. 8 I.NA..J tVP.No.-l0tzB o/ 2023

13. The dispute revolves around Acs.2-09 gts, which belongs to the father of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the name of their father-Y.Sudharshan was recorded as inamdar in respect of an extent of Acs.2-09 gts and as such, they are entitred to issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate. 14. The issue of grant of occupancy Rights certificate to the inamdar and the successor-in-interest has been elaborately clealt b-r, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High court of Andhra pradesh in B.Ramender Reddy vs. District Coilector, Hyderabad-', w,herein it is held as hereunder:- *39. In the state of Andhra pradesh, the rest of trre provisions were brought into force on l.l l.lg73. we ha'e already pointed out that the right to get occupancy right is not co-related to the right of vesting of inams in trre Government. In other words, though the lands vested in State on 20th July, 1955, if the lnamdar or various types .f tenants were in possession of land as on l.l1.1973, thct, would be entitled to occupancy rights under the Act. . we have already referred to the definition of vesting under Section 2 of the Act. It contemplates two-dates of vesting viz., one for the purposes of Section 3(2)(a), (b), ( I9e3) 2 An WR s4 (DB) 9 LNA, J t|/P.No.30178 of 2023 (c), (e) and (l) and Section 3(3) and Section 3(4) and anotherforthepurposeoftheremainingprovisionsofthe Act. The date of vesting for the purposes ol' Section 3(2)(a). (b), (c), (e) and (f) and Section 3 (3) and Section 34 is the date of, publication of the Act in the Official Gazette. The date of vesting for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act is the date appointed by the Governrnent under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section I ol'the Act. [n other words, the date ol-r'esting for thc purpose of abotition of the inams and the consequencesofabolitionandforthepurposeol.repealis 20th Jul1z, 1955, whereas for the purpose of the other provisionsoftheAct,thedateofvestingisthedate appointed by the Government, namely, Itt November' -fherefore, the date of vesting for grant of 1973. occupallcy rights rvill be the notified date' namely' itt November, 1973." p

15. From a reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is explicit that the condition sine quo non for grant of occupancy Rights certificate is that the Inamdar or various types of tenants should have been in possession of the inam land as on 01 'll'1973'

16. The aforesaid condition stipulated for grant o1' Occupancy Rights Certificat e in B.Ramencler Recldy's case (cited supra) has been l0 LN,4, J IVP.lto.30 t78 of 2023 reiterated by a Division Bench of this court in B.Laxmi (died) per z*s (cited supra), wherein it is observed as hereunder:- "Actual possession of rand and personar curtivation as ott 0 l. I l. 1973 isa sine quo non/o r grant ofORC.,, tn the instant case, even as per the case of the petitioners, their 17 ' father's naine was recorded as ,inamdar, of the subject rand, whereas the names of the fathers of the unofficiar respondents, i.e., respondent Nos'5 to 35 were recorded as 'occupants,. Therefore, evidentry, the subject land was not under occupation or personar curtivation of father of the petitioners as on 0 r. l I .'rg73. This aspect goes to the roor of the case of the petitioners regarding their entitrement for grant of occupancy Rights certificate. The condition stipurated in B.Ramender Reddy's case (cited supra) regardingr entitleme,t of inamdar flor grant of oRC is not satisfied. In other words, the petitioners faired to show that their father was in occupation or personal cultivation of the subject land as on 0l .ll.lg73 and as such, the original inamdar i.e., father of the petitioners and the petitioners, who claim rights over the subject land being legar heirs of their father, are not entitled to grant of occupancy Rights certificate in their -favour. I i t t t I ! I i ; I LNA, J IttP.No.30l78 of 2023

18. Thus, point No.l is answered accordingly. Point No.2:- 19- To decide this issue, before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to refer to Sections 9(2) and24(2)of the Act, 1955 and Rule l8(2) of the Rules made thereunder. Section 9(2) of the Act, 1955 reads as under: "LV'here an inam land has been converted for any ptffpose unconnected with agriculture, the horder of such rand shail be entitlecr to keep the rancr provicred that such conversion was not void or illegal under ary; law in j-orce.,,

20. Section 24(2) of the Act, 1955, reads as under: "If any question arises whether any buirding or ranct fails within the 'scope of section 9, the some shart be refefr,ed to the prescribed authority whose crecision shart be finar.,, 2l ' As per Rure l g(2) of the Andhra pradesh (Terangana Area) Abolition of lnanrs Rures, rg75, speciar Tribunal has been prescribed as authority under Section 24(2) of the Act and vide G.o.Ms.No.l6r3, dated 13-12-1975,'District and Sessions Judges, are constituted as 'Special Tribunals, for the purposes of this Act. I t2 Lr/p No.3ot78:iYr! 22' From a combined reading of Sections 9(2) and 24(2)of the Act, lgss, and Rule ls(2) thereunder, it is manifest that if any question/dispute arises as to whether any bu,ding or Iand fars within the scope of Section g, the same shalr be referred to the District and Sessions Judge, who is prescribed as the competent authority under the Act, 1955. Thus, the issue as to whether the horder of inam rand is entitled to keep the same, even after conversion of the same into non_ ag,culturar purpose, has to be adjudicated by the Speciar Tribunar, i'e', District Judge who has been deregabd with such powers, vide GOMs.No. l6 13, dated 13.t2.1g75. 23' In the instant case, respondent No.2 has set aside the order of respondent No-3-Revenue Divisional officer, by observing that the subject rand was utirized for non-agricurturar pu{pose, as such, grant of occupancy Rights certificate under Section 4 0fthe Act, Ig55 is not permissibre and f'urther, herd that the order of respondent No.3 issuing ORC is without jurisdiction. 24' wth regard to usage/nature of subject land, i.g., whether it is agricultural land or non-agricultural land, there are two conflicting reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Inspector of Survey, as & ,F t3 LNA, J lltP ,Yo.30178 of 2023 already narrated supra. This Court, while adjudicating the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into the veracity of the reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy lnspector of Survey and act as a fact-finding Court and venture to give any finding regarding that aspect.

25. However, in vierv of the finding of this cour-t that as on

01.11.1973, the fbther of the peritioners was not found to be the occupant of the subject property, the nature of the land assumes no significance.

26. Further, the petitioners failed to place any material on record to show that the subject land is being cultivated or is capable of being cultivation, and that the same is under their occupation. o,,fl the other hand, it is the specific contention of the unofficial respondents that the subject land has been converted to non-agricultural purposes and number of houses, school, temple, etc., have been raised therein, therefore, the application of petitioners for issuance of ORC cannot be entertained by respondent No.2 and that as per Sections 9(2) and 24(2) of the Act, the same has to be adjudicated by a ,special Tribunal'. 1 e t4 LNA, J ll/P.No.30t 78 of 2023

27. In the light of the above anarysis, when there are conflicting reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy lnspector of Survey with regard to nature of the subject rand and when there is any amount of ambiguity as to the exact nature of the subject rand, therefore, this court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 erred in taking into consideration onry the report of the Tahsildar, overrooking the report of the Deputy lnspector of Survey, and holding that the subject land being non-agricurturar rand, respondent No.3 is not empowered to grant ORC in favour of petitioners. 28. Respondent No.2 has losr sight of the fact as to whether the father of the petitioners was occupier or personar curtivator of the subject land as on 0l.l r.r 973, thereoy entitring the petitioners for grant of oRC and has set aside the order of respondent'No.3 granting oRC on a different ground, i.e., taking into account the nature of the subject land, which is not appreciable. 29. This point is accordingly answered Point No.3:-

30. In view of the findings of this court on point Nos. r and 2 and the legal proposition laid down in B.Romender Reddy,s case (cited -/V).-- & l5 LNA, J N'P.No.30178 of 2023 supra), which has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in B.Loxmi (died.) per LRs (cited supra), this Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled to ORC in respect of the sublect land and the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

31. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

32. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No To, Sd/.S.MALLI KARJU NA RAO - - ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// Hvderabad

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Govt' of Telangana z rtE Aogiti;nar corrector (Revenuel;Tffi Si*l;i'i:itd *"00, District i. iii; ii.D.b., rnam Tribunbl, lbrahim 4. The Tahsilor,ar,' i L#nIilpdi"e1l tt4'fi oit' nglgg.Egddv District' 'L.HAVNp-ff'Advocate toPucl E d; bdi;-sCi 6. Two CCs to cp FCjR nEVE1fUE ,ffGn Court for the State of Telangana' ,. E*-'I" tO SRI. KOTHA JANARDHAN REDDY, AdVOCAIE TOPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies PMK BM N/ HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 \< ORDER WP.No.3O178 of 2023 1 HE ST4 ?7ilBUG, v 2 a * gC p Td o ( * t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0'n $