COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition 2601 of 2019 is filed by A1 to A4, and Criminal Petition 1648 of 2019 is filed by A5 to A30. Both petitions are filed seeking to quash the Crime No.685 of 2018 of Uppal Police Station, R.R.District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 to 4 have filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District on 06.04.2017. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to Police Station, Uppal, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Basing on the same, the above crime was registered vide FIR No. 685/2018 against the petitioners in both cases, who are A1 to A30.

3. The allegations made in the complaint are that the father- in-law of the respondent No.4-Thokata Narsimha was the Inamdar and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas and in Sy.No.124 to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas, totaling to an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas, situated at Uppal Bagayath Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After the death of Narsimha, the respondent no. 4’s husband, namely Tokata Sandiah, has acquired the same from his father and the name of her husband Thokata Sandiah, was entered into the revenue records as the owner and possessor of the said property. After Sandiah’s death, the respondent No.4 is enjoying the peaceful physical possession of the said property.

4. Further, when A1 along with others tried to interfere and dispossess her possession over the property on 30.07.2015, the respondent No.4 filed a suit vide OS.No.473 of 2015 for perpetual injunction on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. In the said suit, a written statement was filed, stating that, originally, the land admeasuring Ac.3.06 guntas in Survey No.94 and 124 of Uppal Bhagayath village was classified as ‘Mafi Inam’ Land and Gunde Yadaiah, Gunde Krishna and Panga Yadi Reddy and nine others were in occupation of the same. In view of abolition of Inams and since the said persons were in occupation of the said lands as on the date of vesting, i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973, they approached the Inams Tribunal, RDO, for re-grant of ORC. After due enquiry, the ORC was granted on 10.06.1992, likewise, the Accused No.1, after the death of her husband, namely Ram Reddy, being in possession of the Inam land as on the date of vesting, approached RDO for re-grant and after conducting enquiry, RDO found that she was in possession of land admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas. After collecting premium, RDO has granted ORC No.J/4080/1996, Dt.06.09.1997 and later the MRO, Uppal implemented the same. It is also alleged that the said Gunde Yadaiah, Gunde Krishna and Accused No.1-Pogula Sujatha, claiming ownership of the land admeasuring Ac.2.01 guntas, obtained a layout from the then Gram Panchayat and sold plots to various persons under registered sale deeds, including the petitioners in Crl.P.No.1648/2019 (i.e., A5 to A30).

5. Against the grant of the ORC by the RDO, R.R.East Division in file No.J/4080/1996, dt.06.09.1997, in favour of Accused No.1, the 4^th respondent herein has filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Malkajgiri-Medchal District in case No.F1/1828/2016, and the learned Joint Collector after detailed enquiry has dismissed the appeal by order dated 24.02.2018.

6. Further, in the suit vide OS.No.473/2015 filed by respondents 2 to 4, an interim relief of temporary injunction was sought by respondents 2 to 4 vide IA.No.653/2015, and after due enquiry, the Honourable Court was pleased to dismiss the temporary injunction petition with an observation that ‘the property is agricultural land and converted into non-agricultural purpose’. It was also observed that the respondents 2 to 4 herein have failed to establish a prima facie case and possession over the