THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2524 of 2002 Dated:13th July, 2010 Between: 1. Madugu Guddi Janganna & Ors. ….Petitioners and 1. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2524 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 5 in number, seeking Mandamus declaring the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District-1st respondent passed in Appeal No.F2/3/2001, dated 03.12.2001, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar-2nd respondent passed on 27.06.1988 in File No.K/1009/98, as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. 2. The background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Writ Petition by the petitioners are as follows: One Erra Eedanna was the inamdar in respect of the land bearing Survey No.1002 admeasuring Ac.2.33 guntas situated at Mahabubnagar village. The respondents 3 to 8 herein claiming to be the legal heirs of the of Ediga alias Erra Eedanna, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar for grant of occupancy rights certificate. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, considered the application filed by the respondents 3 to 8 herein and proceeded to issue occupancy rights certificate in their favour vide order dated 27.06.1988 passed in File No.K/1009/1988. The petitioners herein assailed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, by filing an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act. The appellate authority on re-appraisal of the evidence brought on record, do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the primary authority and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, by order dated 03.12.2001. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the legal heirs of original inamdar viz., Erra Eedanna are entitled for occupancy rights certificate in respect of Ac.2.33 guntas in Survey No.1002 situated at Mahabubnagar. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8 submits that in the partition of the family properties land bearing Survey No.1002 fell to the share of the respondents 3 to 8 and therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim the occupancy rights certificate in respect of the land in Survey No.1002 admeasuring Ac.2.33 guntas. A further submission has been made that the respondents 3 to 8 have filed a suit in O.S.No.287 of 1999 against the petitioners herein in respect of the land in S.No.998, which is adjacent to the S.No.1002 (disputed land), and obtained interim injunction against the petitioners herein and as a counter-blast to the said suit, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, so as to compel the respondents 3 to 8 to withdraw the said civil suit. 6. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Joint Collector. The Pahani patrikas, which have been exhibited by the respondents 3 to 8 herein, support their version and they also contradict the version of the petitioners of their being in occupation of the land bearing Survey No.1002. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, after perusal of the entries in the Pahani Patrikas observed as hereunder: “It is an admitted fact that Madugu Ramudu is the inamdar of the suit land. The appellants have also admitted that Karre Eedanna the ancestor of the respondents is one of the legal heirs of Madugu Ramudu. The pahanies right from Khasra Pahani to latest pahanies affirmatively proves that the respondents have been in exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The pahanies for the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 relied upon by the Appellants also does not speaks that Erra Eedanna the ancestor of the appellants was in possession and occupation of the suit land. However, the name of Erra Eedanna is appearing in cultivation column of pahani 1972-73 alone. This entry is disputed by the respondents on the ground that the entry is not proved either circumstantial or substantive evidence and hence, claimed as a wrong entry. I have no hesitation to accede to the said contention of the respondents and I do not find any other material to arrive at that the appellants had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Whereas, the pahanies discussed above clinchingly proves that the respondents had been in exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land and more particularly they had in possession of the land on 1-11-1973. In view of the affirmative proof from the pahanies discussed above it is proved that the Respondents alone are entitled for conferment of Occupancy right in respect of the suit land.” It is evident from the order passed by the Joint Collector that Pahani Patrikas do not support the version of the petitioners and instead they substantiate the plea advanced by the respondents 3 to 8 herein. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the appellate authority. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:13th July, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2524 of 2002 Dated:13th July, 2010