The court affirmed that procedural fairness and the right to be heard are fundamental under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, highlighting jurisdictional limits when voiding third-party rights without due process.

ORDER :

E.V. Venugopal, J.

The present batch of writ petition Nos.21537, 21622, 21649, 21560, 21624, 21626, 21628, 21629, 21630, 21631, 21632, 21633, 21634, 21676, 21679, 21679, 21682, 21694, 21696, 21696, 21914, 21828, 21942 and 22016 of 2024 are filed challenging the orders of the respondent No.3 i.e., Additional Collector (Revenue) dated 22.07.2024 in Appeal Nos.F1/124/2024, F1/646/2024 and F1/647/2024 wherein and whereby the Additional Collector set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division granting ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents in respect of the lands situated in various survey numbers of Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth and Sri G.Shiva Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rohit Pogula and Sri V.Hariharan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Srikanth Hariharan learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.

3. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are identical and since the grievance of the petitioners is also one and the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.21537 of 2024 will be discussed to adjudicate the cause.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that originally respondent Nos.20 to 31 were granted ORC in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.46 to 66 and 78 to 87 of different extents situated in Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District (the subject properties) vide ORC Proceedings in File No.H/5652/3-9 & 11 & 12 of 1998, dated 07.10.2023 by the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur. The said ORCs were granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division, Medak District, following due enquiry, in adherence to the binding directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.31641 of 2012 and 23622 of 2015, as well as instructions issued by the CCLA directing issuance of ORCs.

(a) The Revenue Divisional Officer, while granting ORCs to respondent Nos.20 to 31 herein observed that except these respondents, no one has filed Form-I application seeking ORC in respect of the applications’ scheduled lands and in view of the documentary evidence put-forth before him and the reasons and circumstances stated in the said applications and also in view of the affidavit filed by some of the claimants relinquishing their right over the subject property, considered the claim of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 herein, who are the vendors of the petitioners herein.

(b) It is further asserted that subsequent to grant of ORCs, the respondent Nos.20 to 31 sold the subject properties to the petitioners for valid sale consideration and since then the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondent Nos.6 to 19 challenged the ORCs granted in favour of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 before the Additional Collector, Medak vide appeal Nos.F1/124/2024.

(c) The respondent Nos.6 to 19 (appellants before the appellate authority) claimed ownership and continuous possession of subject lands contending that the same were granted to their ancestor Syed Ali and inherited by Chand Sahab and subseque