IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25506 of 2000 Between: R.Ambadas Rao, S/o. Govind Rao, R/o. H.No. 10-2-42, Shivajinagar, Varni Road, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 3 Dinakara Swamy, S/o. Mahadev, Claiming to be the C/o. Mathadhipathi, Bada Rama Mandir and Sri Ram Mutt, Brahmapuri, Nizamabad. 4 K.Gangadhar, S/o. Gangaram, Sri Ram Matt (Big), Brahmapuri, Nizamabad District. (R4 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt. 21/x/02 in WPMP 12765/01) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. T.C.T.SEKHAR FOR MR. P.VENUGOPAL The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 27.10.2000 passed by respondent No.1. On an application ﬁled by the petitioner for grant of occupancy right certiﬁcate under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 evidently issued ORC vide his proceedings No.A3/1405/98, dated 06.10.1998. An appeal ﬁled by respondent No.3 against the said proceedings before the same authority was forwarded to respondent No.1. Having registered the appeal, respondent No.1 after notice to the petitioner and respondent No.3 allowed the same, set aside the ORC issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner and directed the ORC to be issued in favour of Bada Rama Mandir and Sri Ram Matt. He also directed that the said order does not automatically dispossess the petitioner, but liberty was given to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nizamabad to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 83 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for recovering possession from the petitioner. This order is assailed in this writ petition. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.C.T.Sekhar for respondent No.3 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if respondent No.1 was satisﬁed that while issuing ORC, respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure, he ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. He further submitted that respondent No.3, who has not even claimed that he is representing Rama Mandir, has not made any application for issuance of ORC and that despite the same, respondent No.1 wrongly directed respondent No.2 to issue ORC in favour of Bada Rama Mandir and Sri Ram Matt. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought to justify the order passed by respondent No.1 by pointing out that respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’). I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In his order, respondent No.1 observed that respondent No.2 issued the ORC without notice to the Inamdar and even a copy of such an order was not marked to him. He also observed that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the petitioner without holding any enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Having so observed, he directed respondent No.2 to issue ORC in Form-III to the above-mentioned institutions. I ﬁnd force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if respondent No.1 found that respondent No.2 has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules in issuing ORC, he ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after setting aside the ORC. It is not in dispute that neither respondent No.3 nor any person claiming interest in Rama Mandir and Sri Ram Matt made any application for issuance of ORC. It was not as if respondent No.2 was considering the competing claims of the petitioner and the institution for issuance of ORC and that he accepted the claim of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the institutions. In such a situation, respondent No.1 was not justiﬁed in directing ORC to be issued to the religious institution. In my considered view, he ought to have directed respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry between the petitioner and the Bada Rama Mandir and Sri Ram Matt as to the entitlement of ORC and pass an order after considering the claims of the parties. The writ petition is therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claims of the petitioner and the institution for issuance of ORC after holding enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni