IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.181 of 2026 DATE: 16.02.2026 BETWEEN:

Chilkuri Lakshmi (died) and 3 others ….Appellants AND The State of Telangana and 9 others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19745 of 2023. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, thereby upholding the concurrent orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Malkajgiri Division (4^th respondent) dated 23.07.2022 and the Additional District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District (3rd respondent) dated 10.05.2023. The said authorities had rejected the appellants' application for grant of an Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘Inams Act’) in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.04 Gts in Sy.No.26 and Ac.2.19 Gts in Sy.No.27 of Pet Basheerabad Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land').

2. Heard Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7; Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Kum.Pratyusha Boppana, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9 and perused the record.

Factual background (in brief)

3. The appellants claim to be the legal heirs and successors-in- interest of late Chilkuri Narsimha. It is their case that the schedule property originally belonged to their great-grandfather i.e., Chilkuri Balaiah, who is stated to have been the Inamdar of the land. Reliance is placed on the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954–55, wherein the name of Chilkuri Balaiah is recorded as Pattadar/Inamdar and the names of his sons, namely, Chilkuri Durgaiah, Chinna Lachaiah and Lachaiah, are reflected as Hissadars. The appellants further refer to the Pahanis for the years 1972–73 and 1973–74, in which the name of Chilkuri Narsimha is shown in the cultivation column. On that basis, it is asserted that Chilkuri Narsimha was in personal cultivation of the land as on 01.11.1973, the crucial date under the Act, and consequently, his legal heirs are entitled to the grant of ORC under Section 4 thereof.

4. The 5^th respondent, Smt. B. Nandini Raju, on the other hand, claims title and possession over the schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1928 of 1978, dated 06.11.1978, executed in her favour by 13 vendors, including Chilkuri Narsimha. The consideration recited therein is Rs.31,057/-.

5. Following the execution of the sale deed, mutation was effected in the revenue records in favour of the 5^th respondent by the competent authority vide proceedings No.A/2/ROR/89 dated 21.08.1989, and her name was recorded as pattadar and possessor. A I-B extract bearing Khata No.27 was also issued in her favour.

6. The 5th respondent subsequently converted the land for non- agricultural use. A residential layout was approved by the competent municipal authority, namely the Municipal Commissioner, Quthbullapur Municipality, vide Layout No.12090/P2/H/90 dated 02.09.1996. Thereafter, the land was developed into residential plots, several of which have been alienated to third parties and constructions are stated to have been raised.

7. After a considerable lapse of time, the appellants submitted an application on 01.12.2021 before the 4^th respondent–RDO seeking grant of ORC in respect of the schedule land.

8. The 4th respondent, after conducting an enquiry pursuant to directions issued by this Court dated 03.02.2022 in W.P.No.5762 of 2022 and