1. K. Laxman Kumar v. ", o"ing violative of Articles 14'

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the endorsement vide file No. D'l/5510-1 12021, dated 7-10-2023 issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 respondent No 4 not to entertain registration of any sale deed or deeds in respect of land admeasuring Ac 6-00 Guntas comprised in survey No.655/U2, situated at Mankal village, Harshaguda, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: Marella Penchala Subba Reddy, S/o Subbanna, Aged about 55 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No. 1502, A-Block, Movie Towers, Kokapet, R.R.District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Puli Devender Reddy, S/o Pratap Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Gangaram village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

2. Jinna Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Thirupathi Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.2-10-17'10, Chaithanyapuri, Karimnagar town, Karimnagar District.

3. E.Purushotham Reddy, S/o.Lal Reddy, Aged about 78 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Gangaram village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

4. Puli Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Laxma Reddy, Aged about years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Gangaram village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

5. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI E.RAMESH CHANDRA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent No.S & 6: SRI G.SATHYAVEER REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 33413 OF 2023 Between:

1. Puli Devender Reddy, S/o iratap Reddy, Aqed about 50 vears. Occ. 9usiness, Rl./o. Gangaram village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnalar District, Telangana State.

2. Jinna Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Thirupathi Reddy, Aqed about 53 vears. Occ. Pusiness, Ryo.H.No.2-10-1710, Chaithahyapuri, Karimnalar town, Karimnagar District.

3. E.Purushotham Reddy, S/o.Lal Reddy, Aqed about 78 vears. Occ. R/o.Gangaram village. Srirahpur Mandal, Karimn5gar District, Agriculture, Telangana State. ^

4. Puli Ravinder Reddy, S/o-.Laxma RgQdy, Aged about years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Gangaram village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimna jar District, T-elangana State. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State 9f Tglgngalq, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Dharani lntegrated Land Records Management System, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Nampaliy Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Tahsildar, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Varthya Kishan, S/o Sakru, Rl/o.Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Marella Penchala Subba Reddy, S/o Subbanna, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 1502, A-Block, Movie Tower{ Kokapet, R.d.Oistiict. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent District collector in issuing Endorsement vide file.No.D115510-112022 dated 7-10-2023 without considering the Reports submitted by the 4th respondent Lr No.B/gg6/2021 7 6 rhe D h a ran i r ntes rated L a n d Commissioner ot Lan H6'jii, Auio"' HYderabad n",.HH f T3,g""U,111 t#lTr.[:|o :'1, n38lfJ

7. The District coilector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Ranga Reddy District' 9. The Tahsildar, Maheswaram Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' l O.VarthYa Kishan, S/o Sakru' R/o'Mankhal village' Maheshwaram Mandal' Rangb Reddy lJtstrtct ..RESPoNDENTS Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim directions granted in lA 2 of 2023 ol WP No' 33413 of 2023 dated 1 1.12.zoz3is devoid of any merits and dismiss the writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P'GlRl KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe RespondentNo'7: SRI CH'SAMSON BABU The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ( , I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.365 and 33413 of 2023 COMMMON ORDER: Since the controversy . involved in the present cases is similar, both these writ petitions were heard together and they are being disposed ofby a common order.

2. W.P.No.365 of 2023 has been filed seeking to declare the fraudulent entries being reflected in the Dharani Web Portal in favour of the unofficial respondent No.5 contrary to the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/89612O21 dated 1 1.O3.2O22 which, was forwarded by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 in respect of the petitioners' land in Survey No.655 admeasuring Ac.2.23 guntas situated at Harshaguda village, Mankhal Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distract, as illegal and arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

3. W.P.No.33413 of 2023 has been filed seeking to set aside tle endorsement issued by respondent No.3 vide File No.D1/5510-1 /2022 dated 07 .1O.2023 without considering the reports submitted by respondcnt No.4 vide Lr.No.Bl896l2O2l dated 08.09.2021 and 11.O3.2O22 as arbitrary and illegal.

4. Brieflv stated the facts of W.P.No.33413 of 2023 are as lollows:- 2 The petitioners claim to have purchased land to an extent of Ac.3.28 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.654, 655, 718 and 719 situated at Mankhal Village through registered sale deeds vide document Nos.22435'6f 2006, 22438 of 2006 and 22434 of 2006 from their predecessors-in-title, who acquired rights under the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Inams Abolition Act") by obtaining ORC. It is the case of the petitioners that the revenue authorities instead of mutating their names in the revenue records, erroneously entered the name of respondent No.6 and taking advantage of the same, respondent No.6 illegally raised a compound wal1 on the subject land and he has been enjoying the subsidies being sanctioned under Rythubandu Scheme, without having any right or title over the subject land, which constrained the petitioners to approach the 'I'ahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.S herein seeking to delete the name of respondent No.6 and to mutate their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.S in turn conducted enquiry and submitted reports vide Lr.No.B/896/ 2021 dated 08.O9.2021 and Lr.No.B/ 896 I 2O2l dated 1 1.O3.2O22 /6tating that .. even though the petitioners v purchased the lands in Survey No.654, 655, 718 and 719 of Mankhal Village through registered sale deeds, their names have not been impler4ented in the pahanis pertaining to Mankhal Village; and there'is overlapping of part of land in Survey No.655 and the petilioners are in physical possession of rest of the land in Suruey No.6S5. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the same, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.3 herein issued the impugned endorsement dated 07. 10.2023 stating that the said reports issued by respondent No.5 are purely based on misapprehension; the land parcels being claimed by the individuals are not one and the same; and as such, it is left open to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum/civil court for redressal of their grievance, it any, with regard to title.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners have agitated before respondent No.3 questioning the ORC issued in favour of the ve ndor of respondent Nos.6 and 7 a-nd respondent No.3, instead of calling for the records relating to grant of ORC in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 or their vendors/ their predecessors in interest, has come to the erroneous conclusion and issued the impugned endorsement relegating the parties to approach the competent 4 civil court for correction of revenue entries. Learned counsel further contended that the entries made in the revenue records are only consequential act of issuance of ORC and unless the validity of the original proibedings relating to issuance of ORC is decided, no useful purpose would be served in approaching the competent civil court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7, submits that both the vendors of the petitiqners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7 were granted ORCs under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act; the said ORCs have been issued for the very same survey number but in respect of different extents of land; the land claimed by the petitioners on the one hand and respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the other hand are totally different and distinct; and out of the total extent of land in Survey No.655, there is dispute only to the extent claimed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7; and in the guise of the fraudulent entries made in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7, they are not only interfering with the possession of the petitioners but also causing inconvenience for enjoyment of the subject properry. )

7. Be that as it may, as seen from the record, it is evident that while granting ORCs in favour of the vendors of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7, the sub-division records have not been prepared and total extent of land in the subject survey number has not been mentioned. Furthermore, since the petitioners are not the original inamdars and since the issues raised in this writ petition are relating to inter se disputes of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7 and also identification and localisation of the subject land, based upon the alleged sale deeds said to have been executed by their vendors, who are ORC holders, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to respondent No.3 by directing him to conduct de nouo enquiry as to the genuineness of the ORCs alleged to have been issued in favour of the predecessors-in- I I interest of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7.

8. In vier,r, of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated

07.1O.2O23 issued by respondent No.3, the reports relied on by him dated 08.09.2021 and 11.O3.2O22 and also the consequential entries made in the Dharani Web portal pursuant to the impugned endorsement and reports. The matter is 6 remanded to respondent No.3. who in turn shall conduct de nouo enquiry as to the genuineness of oRCs issued in respect of the subject land after issuing notice to the parties herein as well as other interested / elfectbd persons by virtue of passing the impugned endorsement and after verification of the records, shall pass appropriate orders, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and Rules made thereunder, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPYII To SEC ON OFFICER 1 Ihq Princip^ql Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat buildings, ^ Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. The chief commissioner bf Land Administration, Dharani lnteqrated Land TggprO.q Management System, Tetangana State, Nampatty Stiiion-noiU, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4. r ne Iahsttdar, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranqa Reddv District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranqa Retdv Distiict. 6. One CC to SRt E.RAMESH^C.HANDRA GOUb, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRI P.GlRl KR|SHNA. Advocate tOpUCl Q One CC to SRI CH.SAMSON BABU, Advocaie tOpUCl 9. One CC to SRI G.SATHYAV_EER_REDDy, Advticate 1OPUC1 10.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for thit StaG of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1. Two CD Copies BSR PSK w HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.365 and 33413 of 2023 ? l ATE t$ tLt $11 o 2 .n x oEsP A1 DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS 0b