Sardar Shah Mohammad Khan, (Died per L.Rs) v. Venu Gopal Reddy

Petition under Article 226 oI 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Additional Collector (Rev), Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd Respondent herein, in passing the interim suspension of ORC granted in favour the petitioners herein in Procgs No. Jl615Ot2O13, daled 01-10-2013 by interim order dated 11-10-2025 in Case No. F11267712024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without following due procedure of law and in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently to set aside the interim order dated 11-10-202!i in Case No. F11267712024 passed by the Additional Collector (Rev), Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd Respondent herein. lA NO: 1 Ol= 2025 Petitron 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 thr-'interim order dated 11-10-2025 in Case No. F1t2671t2024 passed by the Additional Collector (Rev), Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd Respondent herein, penrling disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI E.MADAN MOHAN RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI T.SRIKANTH REttDy The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32228 OF 2025 DATE: fi-42-2426 Between Sardar Shah Mohammad Khan and three others. Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and four others. ORDER: (ORAL) Respondents Heard Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that appeal filed by respondent No.5 in Case No.F1 1267712024 is not maintainable under Section 24 of A.P. (Telangana Area) inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for ,1"'j' 2 short 'lrrams Abolition Act'). Respondent No.5 is not a person interested. He does not have locus standi to file appeal. Thus, granting of interim order suspending ORC granted to the petitioners on 01.10 2016 is unwarranted and cannot be sustained.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that a third party alsr) can be a person interested. The lands in question have been vested in the Government. Most of the lands have been utilized for public purposes. The provisions of lnams Abolition Act, particularly Section 4 requires enquiry to be conducted to determine the standard holding ol the applicant, which has not been conducted in the instant case. Thus, the matter requires consideration. Moreover, when the lands are vested in the Government, the question of granting ORC does not errise.

4. Le:arned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the Government also has filed appeal challenging ORC dated

01.10.2016. A copy of the appeal grounds is placed on record. Section 24 of lhe lnams Abolition Act says any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under Section 10 may file appeal.

5. ln tre opinion of this Court, a person aggrieved would mean a person who has interest in the subject property. In the instant case, respondent No.5 is a third party and his contention is that the subject ::3:: lands are Government lands. However, taking note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that independent appeal has been filed by the Government, it needs to be noted that the interest of the Government is sufficiently safeguarded. lt is not only that respondent No.5 pnma facie cannot maintain appeal in terms of Section 24 of the lnams Abolition Act, ORC which was granted on

01.10.2016, has been suspended after many years by the impugned order dated 11.10.2025. I

6. ln the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated 11.10.2025 cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. However, in the interest of justice, since appeal has been filed by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, along with condone delay application, this order shall not be given effect to for a period of one month. Within this time' respondent No.4 shall take necessary steps to get the condone delay application and stay application filed along with appeal disposed of' Further the appeal of respondent No.4 (subject to condone delay application) and the appeal of respondent No.5 in Case No.F1t 2677t2024 shall be heard together. lt is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined only to this writ petition and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion' The appeals filed by respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 shall be ::4:: decided on merits without influenced by any of the observations made in this c,rder.

7. ,{ccordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-C. DEEPIKA AS S I STANT-,IREG I STRAR (z To, SECTION OFFICER 1' The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings. Hyder;abad, State of Telangana. 2- The Additionar District coirector, Ranga Reddy District 3' The Revenue Divisional Officer,.lbrahimpatnam Division (Erstwhile Saroor Nagar Division) Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam tVlandal Ranga Reddy District 5 one c(l to SRt ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA, Advocate [opUC] 6 one co to sRr T SRTKANTH REDDY, Advocate lopijc] 7 Two C(ls to GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 8. Two C[r Copies Hyderarrad [OUT] BSR BS W HIGH GOURT DATED: 111021202G It ORDER WP.No.32228 of 2025 1 HES rJ I i ,1 * 6t t. B 7|,l2F * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION , WITHOUT COSTS <.. ).- b