ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the Case No F2/1583/22 (Additional Collector case No F2/1613/22), and quash the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently set aside the order dt 29-4-2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No F2/1583/22 (Additional Collector case No F2/1613/22) and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as on the date of enforcement of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “Act”), the petitioners and their forefathers are in actual possession of the inam lands in Sy.Nos.123, 128, 129, 130 and 179 situated at Chinnaravulapalli Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. It is further submitted that even though the said fact was brought to the notice of the respondent No.2-appellate authority, simply relying on the report of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, confirmed the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the respondent No.5 and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 29-04-2023 in File No F2/1583/22 (Additional Collector Case No F2/1613/22). It is also submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of Inams Act, 1955 and the respondent No.2 failed to take into consideration, the relevant records and came to conclusion on the irrelevant material and therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition as prayed for.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of ORC in and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent No.5, they are entitled to question the same before the appropriate authority. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and there is no illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned order. It is also submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the impugned order, they have to file revision on limited grounds as prescribed under Section 28 of the Act but not the writ petition and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the appellate authority has failed to take into consideration that the petitioners and their forefathers are in possession of the subject property as on the date of enforcement of the Inams Act and ORC was erroneously granted in favour of the respondent No.5. Whereas it is the case of the respondent No.5 that the revenue authorities have rightly granted ORC in his favour and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the case of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 29.04.2023. Admittedly, there is a serious dispute with regard to grant of ORC in favour of the respondent No.5 in respect of subject lands.

6. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition i.e, whether a revision under Section 28 of the Act is required to be filed against the impugned order passed by respondent No.2-appellate authority or whether the present writ petition is maintainable, is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is not a reasoned order. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The impugned order dated 29.04.2023 passed in File No.F2/1583/22 (Additional Collector Case