HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4099 OF 2025 Date:13.03.2026 Between K. Narsing Rao ……..Petitioner and The Additional Collector (Revenue)

Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Anthaipally and others. ….…respondents This Court passed the following

ORDER

Heard Sri Basa Chanakya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Chelimella Dheeraj Kumar Simha, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent, Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.S.Naga Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 and Sri Suresh Podder, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 and 13. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 9 and 11.

2. This revision is filed under Section 28 of Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act, 1955’), challenging the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Case No.F1/2528/2024 by 1^st respondent.

3. 2^nd respondent herein had filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, before 1^st respondent - challenging the order dated 28.02.1991 in File No.L/1596/1988 of 3^rd respondent herein, whereby an Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein in respect of the land admeasuring 6.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.212/1 and Ac.8.03 guntas in Sy.No.214/2 in total Ac.14.27 guntas situated at Girmapur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District ( hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’).

4. The case of the 2^nd respondent herein before the 1^st respondent – the Additional Collector (Revenue), Medchal-Malkajgiri, in Case No. F1/2528/2024 is that:

i. Soon after receiving the impugned orders dated 28.02.1991 of

3^rd respondent on 14.10.2024 i.e. after 33 years, he filed the appeal, therefore, the appeal is within limitation.

ii. The impugned order passed without issuance of notice to him or his predecessors or by impleading him.

iii. He is the son of Late V. Anji Reddy and grandson of Vangeti Ramalingaiah @ Ramalinga Reddy, who was in lawful possession of the subject land from the date of vesting i.e. 01.11.1973. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 herein are granddaughters of said Vangeti Ramalingaiah. Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are grandchildren of Bokka @ Mettu Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, who was a joint possessor as on 01.11.1973.

iv. The orders of 3^rd respondent – RDO are contrary to law and the record. Initially, 3^rd respondent – RDO rejected the claims of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein by Memo No. L/11922/1985 dated 13.05.1987 on the ground that they were not in possession as on 01.11.1973.

v. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein preferred Appeal No. B3/8339/1987. Vide order dated 23.02.1988, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, remanded the matter for de novo enquiry. Vide proceedings, dated 28.02.1991, Respondent No.3 - RDO without conducting a detailed enquiry granted ORC to the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

vi. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein purchased the land under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 149 of 1983 and 150 of 1983 both dated 19.01.1983, executed by the legal heirs of the Inamdar without obtaining ORCs, which is void ab initio.

vii. In the judgment dated 21.11.2022 rendered by Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 913 of 2002 and connected matters, this Court held that only legal heirs in continuous occupation on the vesting date are entitled to ORCs, but not purchasers.

viii. Respondent No.3 erred in treating 20.07.1955 as the vesting date instead of 01.11.1973.

ix. The subsequent purchasers i.e. Respondent Nos.12 and 13, have utterly failed to establish any tenancy rights, cultivation, or legal title over the lands either as on 01.11.1973 or at any time thereafter.

x. The sale deeds executed in 1991 through a GPA after the death of the principal executant i.e., V. Ram