THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13539 of 2004 Dated: 06.08.2010 Between: Sri Jangiti Rajeshwar and another. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Nizamabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 13539 of 2004 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nizamabad dated 10.06.2004 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein claim title in respect of Ac.11.09 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.234 of Binola Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is stated that the said land was originally Mafi Inam land and on the date of the abolition of the imams, the grand-father of the petitioners was in possession of the same. On an application made by the grand father of the petitioners for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under the A.P. (Telanga Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Inam Abolition Act’), the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad after making due enquiry by order dated 18.08.1997 granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of different extents of land, including Acs.11.09 guntas in Sy.No.234. The petitioners, who acquired title to the said land by succession, approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Navipet Mandal, for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds under the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act’) and accordingly, the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein who claimed title through the original inamdar, preferred a revision under Section 9 of ROR Act before the 1st respondent herein. The said revision was allowed by the 1st respondent by order dated 10.06.2004 thereby cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioners and directing the officials to initiate action for cancellation of the Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Inam Abolition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order under which the 1st respondent directed cancellation of the Occupancy Rights Certificate is without jurisdiction. It is contended that as the 1st respondent is exercising the revisional powers under the ROR Act, he has no jurisdiction to order cancellation of the Occupancy Rights Certificate granted under the Inams Abolition Act. On merits, it is contended that as the Occupancy Rights Certificates were granted by the competent authority long back in the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioners had filed declarations under the A.P. Land Reforms and Agricultural Ceiling Act, 1973, proposing to surrender the land in question and more over, the very same land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for submergence under Sriram Sagar Project and an award was passed by the Special Deputy Collector, awarding the compensation in favour of the petitioners, and referring the matter to the civil Court, under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the objection petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein, the conclusion of the 1st respondent in the impugned order that the Occupancy Rights Certificates were erroneously granted to the petitioners herein is not sustainable. It is further contended that the findings recorded by the Joint Collector that Sy.No.234 comprising Acs.11.09 guntas was registered as Darga Inam was incorrect as there was no reference to any Darga Inam in any of the revenue records. It is contended that the word “Durgemeeda” was misread as Darga and as a matter of fact, according to both parties the land in question was shown as Mafi Inam. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit submitted that he is the real owner, Inamdar and pattadar of the land in question and it was never sold to any one. The contention of the writ petitioners that the 3rd respondent was claiming through the original inamdar was absolutely false. It is also stated that the petitioners could not produce any valid document to establish the title claimed by them and that the Occupancy Rights Certificate granted in their favour was not valid and binding on the 3rd respondent as no notice was served on him by any other interested person as prescribed under the ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder before granting the Occupancy Rights Certificate. It is also contended that the declaration under the Land Reforms Act made by the petitioners’ grand-father has no relevancy and the same does not confer any title on the writ petitioners. It is also alleged that as the petitioners had obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate fraudulently by fabricating and forging certain documents, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent warrants no interference. At the outset, it is to be noticed that none of the contentions advanced by the petitioners and the 3rd respondent were taken into consideration by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order. Under the impugned order, it was concluded by the 1st respondent that the Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted to the respondents erroneously merely on the ground that Sy.No.234 was registered in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-44 as Darga Inam and as per Section 4(a) of Inams Abolition Act, no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such land held by the Community/Darga. Accordingly, the 1st respondent concluded that the Occupancy Rights Certificate was liable to be cancelled and the pattadar Pass Books and title deeds granted on the basis of the said Occupancy Rights Certificate were also liable to be cancelled. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion from the impugned order as under: “On perusal of revenue record i.e. Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 it is revealed that the Sy.No.234 comprising Ac.11.09 guntas of Binola village is registered as “Dharga Inam” which held as religious under Section 4(a) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, where Inams are held for the benefit of Charitable and religious, no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant and the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as occupant of the land held by Community/Dharga. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad has erroneously granted the Occupancy Rights Certificate for the land to the respondent herein through his ORC.No.A3/3708/97, Dt.18.08.1997 and on the base of the ORC granted erroneously, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Navipet has issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed for the land to an extent of Ac.11.09 guntas in Sy.No.234 issued in favour of the respondent herein here by cancelled. The matter relating to cancellation of ORC, the F1 Section of Collectorate is here by directed to initiate action for its cancellation under Inam Abolition Act after obtaining record from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad.” As noticed above, the specific case of the writ petitioners is that the land in question was registered as “Durgemeeda Inam” and the 1st respondent had misread the Revenue records in holding that it was registered as Darga Inam. It is also specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the land in question was shown as Mafi Inam and there is nothing in the revenue records to show that it is Darga Inam. The plea of the petitioners has not been disputed by the 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit and no counter is filed by the official respondents. More over, the extracts of the adangal/pahani of 1971 and 1972-1973 placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners shows that Sy.No.234 was described as Durgemeeda Inam. In the facts and circumstances, the very conclusion of the 1st respondent appears to be based upon a misreading of the revenue records. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the entire issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order after hearing both the parties. The petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent are at liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, before 1st respondent to substantiate their respective claims. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 06.08.2010 KLP