THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25485 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was issued Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad, on 17-05-2007, under Section 10 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of Ac.6.38 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.182, 184 to 186, 191, and 195 to 196 of Tokatta Village, Trimulgherry Mandal. It is stated that the ORC was modified, restricting the extent to Ac.6.09 guntas, as directed by the Joint Collector. She applied to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the 1st respondent herein, with a request to sanction the lay-out. It is stated that the 1st respondent is processing the application. Recently, a Member of the Legislative Council appears to have raised a question in the Council, as to the legality of the ORC. Taking note of the same, the Principal Secretary to Government in Revenue Department, the 2nd respondent, addressed letter dated 16-09-2010 to the District Collector, the 3rd respondent, to conduct enquiry and submit a report. The 3rd respondent, in turn submitted a report, dated 20-09-2010, stating that the ORC was issued, in exercise of statutory powers, and if any person is aggrieved by the same, remedy of revision to this Court has to be availed. It was also stated that he has also addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, on 20-09-2010, with a request, not to approve the lay-out, applied by the petitioner. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents 2 and 3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, on behalf of himself and respondent No.2. It is stated that the ORC issued in favour of the petitioner is not in accordance with the actual ground position and the revenue records, and the alleged discrepancy is taken care of. Heard Sri R. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Battacharge, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The circumstances under which a question was raised in the A.P. Legislative Council are not immediately before this Court. It is, however, a matter of record, that the petitioner was granted ORC in respect of Ac.6.09 guntas of land. If any individual, or for that matter, the State, feels aggrieved by the ORC, the only course open to them, is, to avail the remedy of revision before this Court. It is not at all competent for the respondents 2 and 3 to take objection or exception to the ORC issued under the statute. Further, the 3rd respondent has no power to require, or request the 1st respondent to withhold the lay-out. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the proceedings challenged in the writ petition are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner, without reference to any communication, received by them, from respondents 2 and 3. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-03-2011. KO