JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Section 88 of Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act., hereinafter be referred as Act, 30 of 1987 against the order, dated 25.02.2020 in O.A.No.1025 of 2014 on the file of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Originally an application was filed by appellant Nos.1 to 3 before the Endowments Tribunal against the respondents herein. However, as the 1st appellant died on 27.08.2020 i.e., after orders of Endowments Tribunal, the legal representatives of appellant No.1 i.e., appellant Nos.4 to 7 were permitted to file the present appeal.

3. As could be seen from the record, an application was filed by appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein under Section 87 (1) (c) of Act, 30/1987 to declare the properties shown in OA schedule vide A to D properties i.e., agricultural lands are not endowed properties of 2nd respondent-Temple and declare them as private properties of the appellants. According to the averments made by appellant Nos.1 to 3 in the above referred application before the Tribunal, they have claimed that their father by name Sesha Chary was the absolute owner and possessor of schedule property. He was a poojari by profession and used to perform pooja etc., at 2nd respondent-temple and in view of rendering service to the temple, the then Jagirdar granted him personal Inam in respect of schedule properties decades back i.e., much prior to 1954-55. They have also claimed that name of father of appellant Nos.1 to 3 was recorded as pattedar and possessor not only in the khasra pahani and also in the pahanies for the subsequent years. He died during 1973 and after his death, appellant Nos.1 to 3 being his legal representatives succeeded to the schedule properties and became absolute owners as such they have been enjoying the possession of these lands. They made an application to the concerned revenue authorities for grant of succession and the revenue authorities after making enquiry, issued succession certificate in their favour in respect of the schedule property.

4. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 have also claimed before the Tribunal that by virtue of provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, they are entitled for Occupancy Right Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) and accordingly they made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy Dist, East Division and the said authority after due enquiry, granted them ORC in respect of the schedule mentioned lands. After obtaining ORC in their name appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein made an application to Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Medchal to mutate their names in the revenue records and MRO, Medchal after making an enquiry as contemplated under Law and by following the due procedure passed orders to mutate the names of appellant Nos.1 to 3 as owners and possessors in the revenue records.

5. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2001 the 1st respondent made an application before Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District by making a claim that the properties belong to the 2nd respondent-temple and requested for recording the name of respondent No.2- temple as owner of those lands. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District by treating the said application as an appeal under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, passed an order on 14.06.2005 and set aside the ORC issued in favour of appellant Nos.1 to 3 and remanded the matter to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for fresh enquiry.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.138 of 2006 before High Court, but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2006 with an observation that remedy left open to the appellants is to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 87 (1)(c) of Act, 30/1987 for appropriate declaration. Therefore,