IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION Nos.1434 of 2004 and 23738 of 2022 DATE: 20.02.2026 Writ Petition No.1434 of 2004 Between:

Bommaraju Pushpa Devi and another …Petitioners AND B.Yadaiah and 13 others …Respondents Writ Petition No.23738 of 2022 Between:

Bommaraju Pushpa Devi …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and six others …Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Since the subject matter, parties involved and the issues that arise in the above Writ Petitions are integrally one and the same, these matters are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.1434 of 2004, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

“………may be pleased to pass orders, directions or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority illegal and unconstitutional and allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the Joint Collector, R.R. District, dated 16-7-2001 in Inam Appeal, File No. F1/8571/98 by allowing the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders to meet the ends of justice.

3. W.P.No.23738 of 2022, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

“…….may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Proceedings Letter No.D1/622/2022 dated:28.04.2022 and also issuing e- pattadar pass book bearing Nos. T05010180989 with Katha No.60316 and e-pattadar pass book No. T05010180990 with Katha No.60317 issued in favour of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is totally, arbitrary, irregular, illegal and against the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 i.e., Act 9/2020 and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. The 1^st petitioner (wife of 2^nd petitioner in W.P.No.1434 of

2004) in both the writ petitions is one and the same.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.1434 of 2004 are appellants in Proceedings No.F1/8571/98 dated 16.07.2001.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.1434 of 2004 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.23738 of 2022 are hereinafter referred as ‘rival claimants’.

7. Heard Sri Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, 10 to 14 and Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.3, 4 to 7 in W.P.No.1434 of 2004 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.P.No.23738 of 2022, Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and perused the record.

Chronology of the litigation

8. The present writ petitions, though instituted nearly two decades apart, emanate from a common dispute regarding the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0–32½ Gts in Sy No.358 of Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal (presently Abdullapurmet Mandal), Ranga Reddy District. What commenced as an intra-family disagreement between brothers in respect of ancestral Inam land has, over the years, escalated into protracted and multifarious litigation.

9. W.P.No.1434 of 2004, instituted in the year 2004, calls in question the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 16.07.2001 in Inam Appeal File No.F1/8571/98, whereby the order granting Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the 1^st petitioner was set aside and a direction was issued to grant ORC jointly in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2, each with equal shares.

10. W.P.No.23738 of 2022, filed almost two decades thereafter, assails the implementation of an ORC granted in the year 2008 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein, who assert independent rights over extents of Ac.0–03 Gts each in the very same Sy No.358. The said writ petition arises