IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17004 of 2002 Between: Mahamood Miya, S/o. Mohinuddin, R/o. Atmakur Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, at Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revensue Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4 Jameelur Rahman, S/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 5 Mahamoodur Rahman, S/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 6 Siraju Rahman, S/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 7 Habeebur Rahman, S/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 8 Ataqpur Rahman, S/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 9 Sayeeda Begum, W/o. Late M.A.Rahman, R/o. H.No.16-11-17/5, Saleemnagar Colony, Old Malkpet, Hyderabad. 10 Ghousekhan (Died) as per L.R., Shajan Khatoon, (Died per L.Rs.11 to 17) W/o. Abdul Hadi, R/o. Atmakur Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 11 Mohd Shah Alam 12 Mohd Habeeb 13 Mohd Khaja 14 Zahera Begum 15 Raziya Begum 16 Fateema Begum 17 Shahada Begum ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondents 4 to 9: MR V.S.R.ANJANEYULU Counsel for respondents 11 to 17:MR D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY FOR MR A.NARASIMHA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 18-10-1999 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he remitted the matter to respondent No.2 for granting of occupancy rights certificate in favour of respondents 4 to 10. Heard Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9, and Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 11 to 17, who were impleaded as the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.10. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to mention the facts in detail. It would suffice if it is stated that there is a dispute regarding protected tenancy in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 504 and 505 of Atmakur Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District among the petitioner, respondents 4 to 9 and respondents 11 to 17. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of compromise decree dated 20-09-1956 passed by this Court in CRP No.139/4 of 1955, he was conferred with absolute rights of ownership in respect of Ac.1.07 guntas in Survey No.505 and he was recognized as a protected tenant in respect of Acs.6.01 guntas comprised in Survey No.504 and that when respondents 4 to 9, who are the legal heirs of the petitioner’s erstwhile counsel, Sri M.A.Rahaman, tried to encroach into the said land, he filed O.S. No.7 of 2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur for declaration of his ownership and enjoyment; that in the said suit, respondents 4 to 9 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein they stated that their father obtained occupancy rights certificate from respondent No.1, by his proceedings dated 18-10-1999, and that thereafter he obtained a copy of order dated 18-10-1999 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner further stated that the said order revealed that the appeal before respondent No.1 was between respondents 4 to 7 on the one side and respondents 9 and 10 on the other and he was not made a party to the said appeal. The petitioner questioned this order of respondent No.1 on the ground that though he is the protected tenant in respect of Acs.5.00 guntas, Acs.6.01 guntas and the owner of the balance extent of Ac.1.07 guntas, the proceedings were initiated by the above mentioned two braches without impleading him as a party and describing him as a dead person. He, therefore, sought for setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9, and Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 11 to 17, submitted that on their clients approaching respondent No.2, he granted occupancy rights certificates in respect of certain extents of land in favour of respondents 5 to 9 and for some other extents in favour of daughter of respondent No.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the occupancy rights certificate granted in favour of respondents 4 to 9, his client filed appeal before respondent No.1 and the fact that an occupancy rights certificate was granted in favour of the daughter of respondent No.10 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and hence, he could not file an appeal. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9, stated that against the order granting occupancy rights certificate in favour of daughter of respondent No.10, his clients filed appeal before respondent No.1, which is pending. Inasmuch as the legal right of all the three branches with respect to the above mentioned lands is required to be gone into in the appeals filed against the occupancy rights certificates granted in favour of one or the other branches to the dispute, and the appeals are admittedly pending before respondent No.1, I feel that it is not necessary for me to go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings given by respondent No.1 in the impugned order, which are seriously challenged in this writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of all the appeals filed before him, by the parties to this writ petition, by determining the respective legal rights of the parties over the lands in question. In doing so, respondent No.1 shall not take into consideration any of the findings and observations made by him in his order dated 18-10-1999 and he shall decide the issues independent of those findings and conclusions. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file necessary applications for his impleadment in the appeals, in which he is not a party, before respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th August, 2008 vrn