IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10140 of 2002 Between: Smt. Jakkula Sakku Bai & others. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.Dist. Domalguda, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10140 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated Nil-01-1999 passed by respondent No.1, which received aﬃrmation by the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 07-05-2001. Heard Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and Sri P.VenkataSwamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The dispute pertains to a total extent of Ac.0.33 gts. in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 of Yapral Village, Malkajigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is not in dispute that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners were inamdars of the said lands along with the predecessors of respondent Nos.3 to 6. The husband of respondent No.2 ﬁled a claim petition under Rule 5(1) (b) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’) for grant of Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate (for short ‘ORC’) under Section 8 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before respondent No.1. The said claim was allowed and ORC was granted in favour of respondent No.2, who is the wife of V.Chakrapani, the claimant. The petitioners ﬁled an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 24 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed. Assailing the said two orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of respondent No.1 granting ORC as conﬁrmed by order dated 07-05-2001 passed by the Joint Collector is liable to be set aside on the short ground that respondent No.1 committed a procedural illegally in issuing ORC on the application ﬁled by the husband of respondent No.2 without making the petitioners as parties and without ensuring that notices were served on them. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on Rule 5, which reads as under: Application, enquiry by the Collector, for the purpose of registration of inamdar and the like:- Any enquiry for the registration of an inamdar, kabiz-e- kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant or his succession in interest as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act in respect of inam land which was in his possession on the date of vesting shall be made by the Collector either suo motu at any time or on an application is made, it shall be in Form-I and shall be signed by the applicant. Where an application is made by a person other than the Inamdar, such Inamdar shall be made a party to the application. In respect of inams, for which no application has been ﬁled, the Collector shall take up suo motu enquiry. No person shall be given a certiﬁcate or registration as an occupant in respect of communal lands, uncultivated lands, waste lands, pasture lands, grazing lands, forests, mines and minerals, quaries, rivers and streams, tanks, tank beds and irrigation work, ﬁsheries and ferries and land set apart for the village community which vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances: Provided that in respect of imams held by or for the beneﬁt of charitable and religious institutions (Wakfs, Temples, Charitable and Religious Endowments, etc.), the application for the purpose of registration shall be made by the Trustee, managing Committee, Executive Oﬃcer or other person in-charge of the management of such charitable and religious institutions” Sri P.Venkata Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the contrary, relied upon the order passed by the Joint Collector to show that before issuing ORC, respondent No.1 issued notice in Form-II calling for objections and that no objections were received by him and respondent No.1 issued ORC in favour of respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to the family of Inamdars. The basis for grant of ORC in favour of respondent No.2 was that she purchased the property from the Inamdars on 15-05-1985 and 21-12- 1985, which were subsequently validated. Under Rule 5, which was reproduced above, it is incumbent upon every claimant other than the Inamdar to make the Inamdar party to the proceedings under which ORC is claimed. No ﬁnding is rendered by the Joint Collector that the petitioners were made parties to the proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No.2. The learned Joint Collector in his order made an equivocal statement that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer issued notice in Form-II calling for objections and that no objections were received by him. Though the petitioners questioned the order of respondent No.1 by raising a speciﬁc contention that no notices were served on them, the learned Joint Collector did not speciﬁcally advert to this aspect and did not give a speciﬁc ﬁnding as to whether the notices were served on the petitioners or not. Mere issuance of notice in Form-II is not suﬃcient but respondent No.1 ought to have ensured that notices were served on the petitioners before adjudicating the claim of respondent No.2 and issuing ORC. Indeed, the very claim by respondent No.2 without making the petitioners as parties to the proceedings is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed by Rule 5. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioners were properly served before granting ORC by respondent No.1, the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.1 cannot be maintained. Therefore, the impugned certiﬁcate and the order dated 07-05-2001 passed by the Joint Collector in appeal are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration after giving notices to the petitioners and respondent No.2 and giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No. 12449 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:17.10.2008 Usd