IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13937 of 2000 Between: Vadla Kistaiah … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13937 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 29.01.1996 and 19.06.1999 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. Heard Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No one represented respondent No.4. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that one Chandini Begum is the inamdar of an extent of Ac.5.22 guntas, that she gifted the property to him and respondent No.4, who is his brother and that they arrived at an understanding that while the petitioner takes Ac.3.22 guntas towards his share, respondent No.4 will take Ac.2.00 of wet land towards his share. According to the petitioner, contrary to this oral understanding, respondent No.4 applied to respondent No.2 for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate (for short, ‘ORC’) under the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Though the petitioner was put to notice and entered appearance, he failed to turn up before respondent No.2 at the time of hearing. On considering the pahani for the year 1973-74, which shows that as on the relevant date, namely, 01.11.1973, the name of respondent No.4 is entered in it as possessor, respondent No.2 directed issue of ORC in favour of respondent No.4 by his order dated 29.01.1996. The petitioner assailed this order before respondent No.1, who, by his order dated 19.06.1999, confirmed the order of respondent No.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 are not liable to be interfered with in view of the fact that as on the relevant date, namely, 01.11.1993, admittedly the name of respondent No.4 is shown as possessor. Respondent No.1 in his order rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lokraj and others vs. Kishan Lal and others[1], wherein it is held that inamdars’ right to partition is lost unless re-grant is made and that therefore the petitioner cannot assert any right on the basis of an alleged partition between him and his brother prior to the grant of ORC. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17733 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2008 ES [1] (1995) 3 SCC 291