THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No :164 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Nooty Ramamohana Rao,J) This writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioners questioning the judgment dated 7.11.2009 rendered by our learned brother Justice C.V. Ramulu in Writ Petition No. 18980 of 2009. The two writ petitioners have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) calling in question the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, on 25.2.2008 and 10.3.2008, granting Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of the Respondents, in respect of lands situated in Survey No. 366 admeasuring Acs. 11.06 guntas situated at Khanajiguda, Hamlet of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The claim of the writ petitioners/appellants before us is that the land originally belonged to their grand father, Sri M. Raji Reddy, who purchased the said land from the original inamdar and that without any regard for the family arrangements/partitions that have taken place, in which, certain rights have been created in their favour, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella has unilaterally proceeded to consider the applications submitted by the third respondent herein, and granted Occupancy Right Certificate. Since the petitioners/appellants did not have any opportunity to contest the case as set up by the third respondent herein, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, they have preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and submitted that the entire claim of the third respondent is based upon the partition deed dated 30.4.1978 and the said partition deed is in fact a fabricated one and not a genuine one and based upon such a document, the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of the third respondent causing grave impact to the rights of the writ petitioners/appellants before us. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously submits that the Joint Collector as well as the learned single judge are in error in pointing out that as to whether the partition deed dated 30.4.1978 is a valid or a fabricated one can be decided by the Civil Court, in as much as the entire jurisdiction to decide all disputes concerning Occupancy Right Certificates in terms of Section 10 of the Act are liable to be adjudicated upon by the Special Tribunal created by the statute and consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent would, on the contrary, submit that the appellants/petitioners have in fact instituted a civil suit earlier in O.S. No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge , Ranga Reddy District, which was dismissed on 27.8.2001 for default, and subsequently, the petitioners/appellants have instituted another suit bearing O.S. No. 105 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking for partition of the suit schedule property with metes and bounds and separate possession and the said suit is pending. The learned senior counsel, therefore, would urge that the entire question as to whether the rights and interests of the petitioners/appellants in the suit schedule property comprising of Acs.11.06 guntas situated in Survey No.366 is now the subject matter of a civil suit. The petitioners/appellants have been improving their case from stage to stage and therefore, it is only appropriate that the Civil Court must determine the fact situation as to whether the petitioners/appellants have any subsisting right or stake in the suit schedule property and unless the said question is decided, the writ petitioners cannot agitate the same before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The learned senior counsel would urge that if the Joint Collector was empowered to decide that question, it will virtually be amounting to passing a decree in the civil suit, which is pending, elsewhere. We have considered the rival submissions. We are clearly of the opinion that while the Revenue Divisional Officer at the first instance, and, the Joint Collector as an appellate authority at the second instance, are special creatures of a statute and consequently the power to determine the disputed questions relating to grant of Occupancy Right Certificate are entirely within their domain and consequently no Civil Court is empowered to adjudicate upon any such questions, but, nonetheless, as to whether a particular partition deed or document is not a genuine one or a fabricated one is not a question, which can be adjudicated upon by the Special Tribunal. Precisely, such a question can be decided only by a competent Civil Court. The Civil Court will not be in a position to adjudicate upon the correctness or validity of the Occupancy Right Certificate granted in favour of any persons under the statute. But, nonetheless, the basis for such a claim, as, in the instant case, the partition deed dated 30.4.1978 or even the alleged partition deed pleaded and set forth by the petitioners/appellants dated 8.5.1969, are genuine or not, is a question that is liable to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. It is absolutely unnecessary for us to observe that in case the petitioners/appellants did succeed in establishing before the competent Civil Court that the partition deed set forth by them dated 8.5.1969 is a valid one or correspondingly, the partition deed by the respondent No.3 herein, dated 30.4.1978 is not genuine or not valid, the Revenue Divisional officer is bound to reconsider his decision regarding grant of Occupancy Certificate in favour of the third respondent, as true nature of the document, which has formed the basis for the said claim would have been brought out by the Civil Court. After all, no order can become sustainable, when it’s substratum or basis gets knocked down. Therefore, leaving the questions as to whether the partition deed dated 8.5.1969, as set forth by the petitioners/appellants is a genuine or valid one or correspondingly whether the partition deed dated 30.4.1978 is not a genuine one or not, to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, and based upon such an adjudication, the Revenue Divisional Officer is bound to reconsider the entire matter, we dismiss this writ appeal at the admission stage as we do not find any merit therein. But, however, without costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 21st April, 2010 ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J pnb