HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1374 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the lineal descendants of Kammari Brahmaiah and Vadla Mallaiah of Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to them, Brahmaiah and Mallaiah were granted inam of an extent of Acs.3.03 gts., of land in Survey No.24 of that village, much before 1955. They came to know that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the said land on 09-03-1993. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 07-05-2001. Hence, this Writ Petition. 2. Petitioners contend that they were not put on notice, before the 1st respondent passed the order, dated 09-03-1993, and the 2nd respondent has chosen to enter the merits of the matter. They urge that the ORC was issued on the basis of an unregistered sale deed, and even to verify as to whether such a sale deed was executed at all, it was necessary for the respondents 3 to 5 to implead the legal heirs of the Indamdars. 3. The respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter affidavit, stating that initially, an agreement of sale was entered into in the year 1958 and on payment of balance of consideration, the Inamdars executed an unregistered sale deed in 1968. They submit that as on the date notified under the Act, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. 4. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Ranga Rao Nellutla, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5. 5. The Act provides for abolition of Inams and the consequences that flow from abolition of Inams. Grant of ORC in favour of the persons, who are in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the notified date, is also provided for, in case, the conditions stipulated therefor, are complied with. The record discloses that Kammari Brahmaiah and Vadla Mallaiah were the Inamdars of the land referred to above. Though the petitioners claim to be the lineal descendants of the Inamdars, the respondents 3 to 5 raise some objections, at least, as regards some of them. That, however, is a different aspect. 6. In the context of issuance of ORC in faovur of a person other than the Inamdar, it becomes necessary that the persons claiming ORC must implead the original Inamdar, if he is alive or his legal heirs, if he is no more. This is so, particularly, when the rights are claimed in respect of the land claimed through the Inamdar himself. In the instant case, the predecessors in title of the respondents 3 to 5 are said to have entered into an agreement with the Inamdars, in the year 1958 and thereafter, obtained an unregistered sale deed in 1968. Assuming that those two documents are true, the respondents 3 to 5 could have got any relief from the 1st respondent, only by impleading the legal representatives of the original Inamdars in the application filed under Section 10 of the Act. Admittedly, no such legal representatives were impleaded. 7. The petitioners preferred an appeal. Instead of verifying the question as to whether the legal representatives of the original Inamdars were impleaded in the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent i.e. the appellate authority, has chosen to undertake enquiry into the truth and validity of the agreement of sale and unregistered sale deed. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. He ought to have set aside the order, dated 09-03-1993, passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter to him, for fresh consideration and disposal, and directing that the legal representatives of the Inamdars, shall be impleaded in the proceedings. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the orders challenged in the Writ Petition set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. Respondents 3 to 5 shall implead the legal representatives of the Inamdars. In case, the petitioners are not impleaded, it shall be open to them to file applications to get themselves impleaded and put forward their contentions. The 1st respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 27, 2010. KTL