THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.19968 of 2006 and 20436 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The claim in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.04 gutnas in Survey No.62 of old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was the subject matter of several proceedings. The petitioners herein claim to be the purchasers of the land from the original owner. At one point of time, the proceedings under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) were initiated before the Tahsildar. The challenge made against the said proceedings by the petitioners in W.P.No.19968 of 2006 was not successful and the Supreme Court held that the protected tenants were entitled to be restored possession. The plea that the protected tenants have surrendered their rights was also rejected. Thereafter, a fresh exercise came to be undertaken. This time, some of the protected tenants are said to have surrendered their rights and that the same was recorded by the Tahsildar. The surrender was made on behalf of some of the minors also. The minors, through their mother filed, an appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, feeling aggrieved by the surrender proceedings. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 29.08.2006. In addition to finding fault with the surrender proceedings, the Joint Collector expressed the view that the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Inams Act’) apply and that the whole exercise was untenable. W.P.No.19968 of 2008 is filed against the order, dated 29.08.2006 passed by the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act. The same petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella with a request to grant Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under the Inams Act over the land. Through an order dated 14.07.2003, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted ORCs in favour of the petitioners. That was challenged by the minor children of the legal representatives of the protected tenant through their mother under Section 24 of the Inams Act before the Joint Collector. The appeal was allowed through order dated 23.05.2008. W.P.No.20436 of 2008 is filed against the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. This case has a very long history. In the first round of litigation, the proceedings went up to the Supreme Court. The parties were claiming the rights under the provisions of the Tenancy Act on the one hand and the Inams Act on the other. The theory of surrender of tenancy rights was not accepted by the supreme Court. Stating that the tenants themselves have come forward with the application for surrendering their tenancy rights, the Tahsildar passed an order accepting the surrender. The record discloses that there existed several legal representatives of protected tenants, who are minors and surrender was made on their behalf also. The minors through their mother preferred the appeal and the same was allowed. The grievance of the petitioners is that though some of the parties in the appeal died, the appellate authority i.e., Joint collector did not take the same into account. In the proceedings under the other enactment viz., the Inams Act, some of the protected tenants feel aggrieved by the issuance of ORCs in favour of the petitioners. Incidentally, the appeal under Section 24 of the Inams Act against the ORCs was also to the same Joint Collector. The main ground urged in the appeal was that the ORCs were issued without notice to the protected tenants. It appears that an objection was also raised as to the very permissibility of the proceedings under the Inams Act, once the land is governed by the Tenancy Act. Obviously because the two appeals were heard separately by the Joint Collector, the overlapping of the provisions of one Act upon the other has not been considered. Both the appeals were dealt with independently. It is urged that in the appeal preferred under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, certain procedural lapses have taken place. An important aspect of the matter viz., whether the land could have been dealt with under the Tenancy Act or the Inams Act or under both, needs pointed attention. There are some provisions, under which the Inams Act excludes the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. This Court is of the view that if it emerges that the land can be dealt with only under the Tenancy Act, a doubt exists as to whether an ORC can be issued in the same land under the Inams Act at all. This would be possible, if only both the matters are dealt with simultaneously. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remanded to the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District and it is directed that he shall hear both the matters together, duly giving opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties till then. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.03.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.19968 of 2006 and 20436 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2009 JSU