The appellate authority must engage with the primary authority's findings and provide a reasoned decision based on evidence, especially in matters involving ownership disputes under the Abolition of Inams Act.

ORDER :

Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N.Ranga Rao appearing for the petitioners; Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for the Endowments appearing for respondent No.3; Sri A.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

….may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise calling for the records of the Respondent No.1 in File No. F1/6183/2000 dated 28.3.2008 and declare the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of A.P. [Telengana Area] Abolition of Inams Act 1955 and declare the same as unenforceable by restoring the order of the Second Respondent in file No. L/859/96 dated 1.8.2000 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Factual background and timeline of events

3. The present writ petition, is instituted assailing the appellate order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the 1^st respondent i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The case pertains to the claim of ownership and occupancy rights over a substantial extent of land admeasuring Ac.15.23 gts. in Sy.No.384 of Attapur Village; that the subject land is a Dastugardhan Inam a personal grant and not an endowment in favour of any temple; that petitioners were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in three independent proceedings between the years 1987 and 1992 and that respondent No.1, in a single appellate order, illegally and mechanically cancelled all three ORCs without adhering to due procedure and without adverting to material documentary evidence supporting their title and possession.

4. The dispute arises out of proceedings under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter ‘Inams Act’). The 2^nd respondent, acting as the Primary Authority under the Act, granted three separate ORCs in respect of different extents of land in Sy.No.384 of Attapur Village in favour of (i) Borra Danaiah for Ac.3.39 gts on 23.05.1987, (ii) G. Laxmaiah for Ac.4.00 gts on 24.01.1991, and (iii) Beetkuri Rajappa and others for Ac.7.24 gts on 13.03.1992.

5. An appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector questioning the ORC granted to G. Laxmaiah. By order dated 11.12.1995, the 1st respondent set aside the order of the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order of remand was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. By order dated 01.10.1996, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, specifically to determine the foundational issue as to whether the land constituted endowment property.

6. Pursuant to the said direction, the 2^nd respondent undertook a comprehensive inquiry in File No.L/859/96. On consideration of the Sethwar, Pahanies, Vasool Baqui, and other primary revenue records, as well as the Muntaqab and the certificate issued by the Jagir Administration, the 2^nd respondent, by a detailed order dated 01.08.2000, recorded the following findings:

i. the Sethwar described the land as “Dastugardhan Inam”;

ii. the Muntaqab issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments did not relate to Sy.No.384;

iii. the Jagir Administration certified that Sy.No.384 did not stand in the records of the Endowments Department;

iv. Pahanies from 1960-61 to 1973-74 consistently described the land as “Dastugardhan”; and v. a communication of the Endowments Department dated 29.05.1989 specifically stated that Sy.No.384 was not included in its books.

On the strength of this documentary evidence, the 2^nd respondent held that the land was not endowment property and consequently confirmed the three ORCs earlier granted.

7. The 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dated 28.03.2008, the 1^st respondent reversed the findings of the 2^nd respondent,