The grant of an Occupancy Rights Certificate under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, is contingent upon the applicant or their predecessor-in-interest proving bona fide occupation and personal cultivation of the Inam land as of the notified vesting date, i.e., 01.11.1973.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings in case No.F1/945/2023, dated 03.10.2023, under Section 24 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act 1955’), setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by respondent No.3, vide proceedings No. J/10064/2015, dated 21.01.2023, in favour of petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act 1955, and consequently, to set aside the same.

Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri L.Ravinder, learned counsel-on-record for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Janardhan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35.

Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the lands admeasuring Acs.21-05 gts forming part of Sy.No.620, situated at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are inam lands; that Respondent No.3 vide proceedings Nos. J/712/1979 dated 31.08.1979, J/3169/1991, dated 13.02.1992, J/1344/1993, dated 16.09.1993, J/7341/1992 dated 16.09.1993 and J/153/1992 dated 27.03.1992, issued Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC) in favour of Kore Narayana, Ramidi Ram Reddy, Gaddam Narsimha Reddy, Ramidi Janga Reddy and R.Sreeram Reddy respectively, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.18-36 gts; that the balance extent of Acs.2-09 gts belongs to late father of petitioners, as such, the petitioners made an application to respondent No.3 for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2-09 gts and the same was taken up as case No.J/10064/2015.

It is further averred that respondent No.3, after due enquiry, issued notice to respondent Nos.5 to 35 herein and also called for a report from the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar submitted report vide letter No.B/972/2014, dated 09.07.2014, stating that major part of Sy.No.620 is covered by houses and Hanuman Temple and only a small extent of land is lying vacant; that as there was ambiguity in the said report, the land was surveyed by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and as per his report, dated 09.01.2023, land to an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is vacant land and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple; and basing on the said report, respondent No.3 issued Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners in respect of Acs.2-04 gts vide proceedings dated 21.01.2023.

Aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 21.01.2023, respondent Nos.5 to 35 preferred appeal before respondent No.2 vide case No.F1/945/2023, who vide proceedings, dated 03.10.2023, allowed the appeal setting aside the proceedings dated 21.01.2023, with an observation that issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of non-agricultural lands is governed by Section 9 of the Act, 1955 and as per Section 24 (2) of the Act, 1955, the same has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunals. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 03.10.2023, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the report dated 09.01.2023 of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is vacant and the petitioners were in possession thereof and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple and therefore, respondent No.3, by duly taking into consideration the ground reality and basing upon the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, has rightly passed the Order issuing Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of vacant land admeasuring Acs.2-04 gts, in favour of petitioners, however, respondent No.2, without properly appreciating the facts and the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, came to an erroneous conclusion that an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is being used for community development such as, Hanuman Temple and Village School. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has erroneously referred to Section 9 of the Act, 1955, though the same has no