THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4629 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein, with a request to grant Occupancy Rights Certificates in their favour in respect of the land in Survey Nos.408 to 412 of Alwal Village, admeasuring Acs.7.32 guntas. Through an order, dated 22.08.2007, the second respondent rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the Occupancy Rights Certificates were already issued in respect of this very land vide proceedings, dated 07.05.1980. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 22.08.2007, passed by the second respondent, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent herein, under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The appeal was dismissed on 27.09.2008, affirming the order passed by the second respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 to 9 on the other represent the two branches headed by two sons of late Reddy Narayana Reddy. The petitioners approached the second respondent with an application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates in respect of the land referred to above claiming half share in the land held by late Venkat Reddy. Obviously, they were not aware of the fact that Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued in respect of that land in favour of respondents 3 to 9. It is also a matter of record that O.S.No.143 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District filed by the petitioners for the relief of partition is pending for adjudication. While the second respondent rejected the application on the ground that Occupancy Rights Certificates were already issued in respect of the land, the first respondent has taken an additional factor, namely the pendency of the suit into account, in dismissing the appeal. This Court does not find any legal or factual error in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. However, the rights as between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 to 9 on the other, need to be adjudicated in the pending suit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies depending upon the outcome of the suit. It shall also be open to the petitioners to assail the validity of the order, dated 07.05.1980, on such grounds as are available to them in law, and as and when an appeal is preferred against it, it shall be dealt with on its on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.03.2009 kdl