1. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the respondents.

2. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad (the 2nd respondent) by proceedings bearing reference No. B2/9004/94, dated 16.12.1995 (the impugned order), in an appeal preferred by the State represented by the 4th respondent [u/Sec. 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 (for short Inams Abolition Act)], set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings bearing reference No. B/4867/93, dated 25.08.1994.

3. The petitioners herein applied for Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of an extent of Ac.5.29 gt, in Sy.No. 102/1 of Hakimpet village (the schedule lands) claiming to be inamdars of the property, granted as inam towards performing “Neerudi” service. The 3rd respondent granted ORC to the petitioners, by the order dated 25-08-1994.

4. Aggrieved thereby the State preferred an appeal u/Sec. 24 (1) of the Inams Abolition Act, to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent allowed the State’s appeal.

The case of the petitioners :-

1) The petitioners and their ancestors are in occupation of the schedule lands, granted to their ancestors by the Nizam for ‘Neerudi’ service rendered for a number of villages including Hakimpet. The entire Hakimpet village is Sarf-e-Khas and merged in the Diwani in 1358-F.

2) Though originally the Inams Abolition Act exempted certain inams including service inams from its purview, by the Amending Act 29/85 all inams including service inams were brought within its ambit.

3) The 4th respondent filed LGC 62/89 against the first petitioner and 17 others before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Prohibition Act), alleging that they had grabbed Government land. The Special Court by the judgment dated 7.9.1992 declared that the first petitioner and the other respondents therein are not land grabbers within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Prohibition Act; that the schedule lands are an inam granted towards ‘Neerudi’ service and that therefore an enquiry under the Inams Abolition Act should be made. The Special Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to resume the land after following due procedure.

4) The petitioners thereupon filed an application before the 3rd respondent (u/Sec. 10 of the Inams Abolition Act) for grant of ORC. Meanwhile, apprehending dispossession, the petitioners filed W.P.No. 18283/93. By the order dated 8.12.1993 this court disposed of the writ petition directing maintenance of Status Quo for a period of two weeks with liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the 3rd respondent for stay of dispossession. By another order dated 24.12.1993 the order of Status Quo earlier granted (for a period of two weeks) was extended till the disposal of the application for interim relief filed by the petitioners in the application filed before the 3rd respondent for grant of ORC.

5) By the order dated 25.08.1994 the 3rd respondent granted ORC to the petitioners.

6) The 4th respondent preferred an appeal u/Sec. 24 of the Inams Abolition Act before the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, as the petitioners’ possession was again being threatened, they filed W.P.No. 25318/95. This writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission by the order of this court dated 10.11.1995, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent within two months and directing the parties to maintain Status Quo with regard to possession as obtaining on 8.12.1993 (the date of the order in the earlier W.P.No. 18283/93).

7) The 2nd respondent by the impugned order allowed and the appeal.

8) The impugned order is invalid since

i) the conclusions therein are contrary to the findings recorded by the Special Court in LGC No. 62/89 and the judgment of this court dated 10.11.1995 in W.P.No. 25318/95;