ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and though notices are served on respondents 5 and 6, no appearance is entered.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking relief as under:

….to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in Case No D5/1174/2017 dt 30 03 2019 passed by the 2nd respondent and order passed in Case no A2/4685/2015 dated 10/05/2016 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and be pleased to pass…

3. To the extent necessary, the facts as averred in the affidavit and material placed on record, reflect as under.

3.1. Mohd Abdul Raheem and 10 others were Inamdars of land to the extent of Ac.0.34 guntas and Ac. 12.06 guntas in Survey Nos. 821 and 822 along with road area admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No. 822 of Mankal village, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy district. Smt.Chunnu Begam purchased the said extent of land. From Smt.Chunnu Begam, petitioners purchased the land by way of registered sale deed Nos 7526 of 2015 and 7527 of 2015 dated 7.4.2015 respectively. That being so, Sri Gunti Yadaiah and Sri Gunti Narsing Rao- respondents 5 and 6 herein claimed that this very land was sold to them by Smt.Chunnu Begam by way of unregistered agreement of sale and vested possession in them. They applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District (East Division) [Inams Tribunal], to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ORC). The Revenue Divisional Officer, issued orders on 29.10.1991 granting ORC to them. Based on the said ORC, their names were mutated in the revenue records. Alleging that the said certificate was granted beyond her back, without notice and opportunity, Smt.Chunnu Begam filed appeal under Section 24 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The said appeal was numbered as F1/692/2009. By order dated 7.7.2009 the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing and set aside the ORC granted on 29.10.1991 in favour of respondents 5 and 6 herein and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional officer for fresh consideration to grant ORC.

3.2. On remand, the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East division, vide proceedings dated 11.1.2010 held that Smt.Chunnu Begam is entitled to ORC on the above extent of land and ordered accordingly. This order was challenged by respondents 5 and 6 in the appeal under Section 24 of the Act, 1955.

By order No.F/667/2010 dated 6.1.2011 the appellate authority observed as under:

“In the instant case ORC had been issued to a person who claims to have purchased the land by agreement of sale which is not a valid transfer in accordance with law. The vendor by way of agreement of sale had transferred to the appellants and now the vendor (respondent) is disputing the same and is claiming for ORC based on registered sale deed. It is not clear whether the vendor to this respondents had a valid ORC at the time of sale.

Thus, on perusal it is seen that both the claimants are disputing the sale deeds and the issue had assumed the nature of a civil dispute and the inam angle had disappeared with lapse of time. Third party interests have come on the subject land. Hence, both the parties are agitate their claims before competent Civil Court.”

3.3. However, the appellate authority has not disturbed the ORC granted to Smt.Chunnu Begam on 11.1.2010. Vide proceedings No.B/1242/2011 dated 30.1.2014 the Tahsildar ordered amendment of revenue records and to record name of Smt.Chunnu Begam on land to an extent of Ac.34 guntas in survey No.821 and Ac.3.11 guntas in survey No.822. It is appropriate to note at this stage that in the mean time, Government acquired land to an extent of Ac.9.13 guntas from out of the original extent of land of about Ac.13.00 and therefore only the above exte