THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1672 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 15.11.2008 in Case No.F1/2127/2008 on the file of 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and the orders passed by 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Rangareddy District in Case No.J/505/2004 dated 15.6.2005 in respect of land in Sy.No.209, admeasuring Ac.14-13 guntas, situated at Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: Petitioner is a registered Welfare Association, with Registration No.1891/2006 and its office is located at 16-11-656/1, Behind Pragati Women’s College, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. The members of the petitioner-association have purchased house plots in Sy.No.209, admeasuring an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas, from one Kasim Ali, under registered sale deeds from 1980 to 1986. Before selling the house plots, the owner i.e. Late Kasim Ali had obtained lay out from Gram Panchayat, Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. From the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment without any interruption from anybody, including respondents 3 to 7. While so, respondents 3 to 7, without impleading the petitioner-association or its members as parties, obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate behind their back on 15.6.2005 vide File No.J/505/2004 dated 24.11.2007. Having come to know about the impugned proceedings obtained by respondents 3 to 7 dated 24.11.2007, the petitioner-association has filed appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District i.e. 1st respondent, in File No.F1/2127/2008. According to the petitioner, entire revenue records show Sy.No.209 as house plots. However, the 2nd respondent, without obtaining any report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District as to the status of the land, granted ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 7 in spite of objections filed by respondent No.11 stating that the entire land in Sy.No.209 is converted into house plots. According to the petitioner, originally respondents 3 to 7 have applied for ORC to an extent of Ac.53-07 guntas i.e. in Sy.No. 204 to an extent of Ac.5-05 guntas, in Sy.No.208 to an extent of Ac.18- 11 guntas, in Sy.No.209 to an extent of Ac.19-31 guntas and in Sy.No.216 to an extent of Ac.10-00 guntas. As per the Inams Abolition Act and the Rules made thereunder, objections have to be called for from the interested persons in respect of the lands mentioned therein by issuing notices in Form-II. However, such objections were called for by issuing Form No.II notice only with regard to Sy.No.209 to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas and Sy.No.216 to an extent of Ac.10-00 guntas, on 2.7.2004. Pursuant to the said notice, 11th respondent filed his objections on 21.7.2004 stating that Late Punnaiah Goud i.e. his father had already sold the entire land in Sy.No.209 of Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. It is further stated that respondents 3 to 7 and their mother Late Smt. Gadam Narasamma have filed an appeal aggrieved by the orders dated 5.8.1976 in C.C. No.E/1180/1975, as third parties, before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rangareddy District vide L.R.A. No. 8 of 1991. The L.R.A.T., by an order dated 21.12.1992, ordered for deletion of an extent of Ac.54-24 guntas from out of the total extent of Ac.203-00 guntas from the holding of V. Pulla Reddy in Sy.Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 215, 216, 217, 218 and 219 of Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Pursuant to the said orders of the L.R.A.T., the Primary Tribunal passed orders dated 22.6.1994. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.6.1994 in C.C. No.E/1180/1975, again respondents 3 to 7 and their mother filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rangareddy District in L.R.A.T. No. 267 of 1994. The L.R.A.T., by orders dated 1.2.1995, ordered for deletion of an extent of Ac.53-07 guntas from out of the total extent of Ac.107-31 guntas in Sy.Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 215, 216, 217, 218 and 219 of Kuntloor village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Aggrieved by the said orders, Smt. V. Sathemma i.e. the legal heir of late V. Pulla Reddy (original declarant) filed a revision petition before this Court in C.R.P. No. 661 of 1996 and this Court allowed the said C.R.P. vide orders dated 11.11.1999 setting aside the order in L.R.A.No.267 of 1994 dated 1.2.1995 and confirming the order dated 22.6.1994 passed by the lower Tribunal in C.C.No.E/1180/1975. However, it was made clear that respondents 1 to 5 in the said C.R.P. who are claiming themselves as protected tenants, if they are otherwise entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Abolition of Inams Act, can pursue the same before the appropriate Forum. It is further stated that aggrieved by the grant of ORC in Proc.No.H/11650/1985 dated 5.2.1986, the authorized officer filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, in File No.F1/6906/A/1997, against the vendor i.e. Md. Khasim Ali, to an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas in Sy.No.209 of Kuntloor village. The learned Joint Collector, vide orders dated 22.12.2001 set aside the ORC granted in favour of said Md. Khasim Ali and remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District i.e. 2nd respondent herein, for fresh enquiry and disposal by giving notices and opportunity to all the concerned. Respondents 3 to 7 herein were respondents 5 to 10 in the said appeal. The said Md. Khasim Ali died on 19.4.1987 itself. However, neither the authorized officer nor respondents 5 to 10 in the said appeal, who are claiming as protected tenants in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas in Sy.No. 209, informed the 1st respondent about the death of said Md. Khasim Ali and, therefore, 1st respondent passed orders against a dead person. Aggrieved by the orders of 1st respondent dated 22.12.2001, the authorized officer filed C.R.P. under Section 28 of the Abolition of (Telangana Area) Inams Act, 1955, before this Court in C.R.P. No. 4223 of 2003. The authorized officer arrayed the dead person Md. Khasim Ali as 4th respondent and this Court dismissed the said C.R.P. as not maintainable against the order passed under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act. In view of the dismissal of revision petition by order dated 7.11.2006, the order passed by 1st respondent dated 22.12.2001 in File No.F1/6906/A/1997 has been confirmed. It is further stated that as per the orders of 1st respondent, 2nd respondent ought to have issued notices to all the persons in Case No.H/11650/1985 and disposed of the matter after hearing the parties, but respondents 3 to 7 filed Form-I on 9.3.2004 to an extent of Ac.53- 07 guntas including the land in Sy.No.209 i.e. an extent of Ac.19-31 guntas and subsequently they themselves filed an application on 3.8.2004 withdrawing and restricting their claim only to an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas in Sy.No.209 and Ac.10-00 guntas in Sy.no.216 of Kuntloor village. The 2nd respondent issued Form-II notices only with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.209 and Ac.10-00 guntas in Sy.No.216, calling for objections from the interested persons including the vendor Md. Khasim Ali, though he died on 19.4.1987. As such, no notice was served on Md. Khasim Ali and, respondents 3 to 7, without informing 2nd respondent about the death of Md. Khasim Ali, obtained ORC on 15.6.2005 in File No.J/505/2004. After disposal of C.R.P. 661 of 1996 on 10.11.1999, which was filed by the legal of Late V. Pulla Reddy, the lower Tribunal passed orders in C.C.No.E/1180/1975 dated 15.10.2004 wherein it was stated that regarding the issuance of ORC in respect of Sy.No.209 to an extent of Ac.14013 guntas, 1st respondent has allowed appeal in File No.F1/6906/1997 dated 22.12.2001 and remanded the matter to the Inams Tribunal and the same is pending. Respondents 3 to 7 have filed counter affidavit denying various allegations made in the writ petition and stating, inter alia, that the petitioner-association has approached this Court without any existing right over the subject land. Admittedly, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Joint Collector dated 15.11.2008 under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Under the said Act, any order passed under Section 24 shall become final. Neither a revision nor a writ petition is maintainable against the orders passed under Section 24 of the Act. As such, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that Sri Khasim Ali obtained ORC on 5.2.1986 and, as per its own admission of the petitioner-association, Md. Khasim Ali was not in possession of the land on the day of vesting. It is the father of respondents 3 to 7 who was in possession, being the protected tenant. The sale deeds, if any, executed by Md. Khasim Ali in favour of the members of the petitioner-association will not confer any right in their favour. It is well settled that no vendee can get a better title than the vendor. In the instant case, as per their own case, the sale deeds were executed prior to 1986, in other words, prior to obtaining ORC. The alleged purchase by Khasim Ali during 1979 from V. Pulla Reddy is contrary to law and illegal, as the ownership vested with the Government in view of the abolition of Inams. As such, neither V.Pulla Reddy nor Md. Khasim Ali can deal with the subject land. As such, all the sale deeds are nullity in the eye of law. In addition to that, the entire land in Sy.No. 209, apart from other lands, is in exclusive possession of respondents 3 to 7, being the protected tenants. As such, the ORC dated 5.2.1986 itself is illegal and not based on facts. It is further stated that the entire Sy.No.209 is an Inam land and the ownership vests with the Government. Any claim by Md. Khasim Ali as purchaser cannot be permitted under law nor V.Pulla Reddy had any right to sell the property to Khasim Ali. The father of respondents 3 to 7 was the protected tenant who was enjoying the possession on the date of vesting i.e. 1.11.1973. Therefore, the question of acquiring any right by the members of the petitioner- association does not arise. Respondents 3 to 7 being the legal heirs of the protected tenant are enjoying the possession not only as on the date of vesting but prior to that also their father was in possession. By following due process of law, respondents 3 to 7 approached the R.D.O. i.e. Inams Tribunal vide proceedings No.J/505/04 seeking ORC. The R.D.O. issued notices to all the concerned through Revenue Inspector and Village Secretary. Thereafter, based on the record, he passed orders dated 15.6.2005 in favour of respondents 3 to 7 granting ORC under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent No.11 herein was also a respondent before the Inams Tribunal as respondent No.4, representing the alleged plot purchasers. Accordingly, ORCs were issued and thereafter pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour. As a matter of fact, proceedings before the R.D.O. were initiated under Section 7 of the Act and the presence of Md. Khasim Ali was not at all necessary as he had no existing right over the subject land and the ownership vests with the Government. He was only a proforma party to the said proceedings. As such, whether he was alive or dead would make no difference on the merits of the case before the Inams Tribunal. In fact, respondents 3 to 7 have knowledge about the death of Md. Khasim Ali. It is further stated, that in the cause title of the appeal filed by the petitioner-association, before the Joint Collector vide No.F1/2127/2008, the name of Md. Khasim Ali was mentioned as respondent No.8 and it was also mentioned that he died. But, they have not chosen to make his legal heirs as parties to the said appeal. Since the order passed by the Joint Collector is against their favour, they are taking the same technical ground as a defence in this writ petition. It is the Government which is the owner of the subject property and, as such, any transactions between Pulla Reddy and Khasim Ali are not binding either on the Government or on respondents 3 to 7. It is admitted that respondents 3 to 7 have applied for ORC and there was a typographical error in Form No.II, but it is stated that the same cannot vitiate the orders passed by the Inams Tribunal. The R.D.O. passed orders after taking into consideration the revenue records as well as physical possession over the subject land. The father of respondents 3 to 7 being the protected tenant approached the R.D.O. for ownership certificate vide Proceedings No.B/229/1975. The said matter was carried before the District Revenue Officer vide No.B/11712/1975, who remanded the matter vide orders dated 31.1.1978 for independent enquiry with regard to physical possession. Basing on the said direction, the R.D.O. conducted thorough enquiry and passed orders dated 14.3.1986 granting ownership rights in favour of respondents 3 to 7. As such, respondents 3 to 7 are not only holding ORC but they are also holding ownership rights as per the said proceedings of the R.D.O. under Section 38(E) of the Andhra Pradesh (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Neither the petitioner-association nor their alleged vendors Md. Khasim Ali and Punnaiah Goud have any right or title over the subject land. It is further stated that the authorities could not implement the said order passed by the R.D.O., which resulted in filing of a writ petition in W.P. No. 13005 of 1987 and this Court directed the R.D.O. and other authorities to take follow up action pursuant to the orders passed by the R.D.O. under Section 38(E) of the A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The petitioner-association, while claiming their right through Md. Khasim Ali, suppressed the said facts which are advantageous to respondents 3 to 7, which is nothing but playing fraud before this Court. In W.P. No. 9276, this Court held “that after commencement of the Inams Act, the Inams lands deemed to be Government lands from 26.7.1955. The contention of Pulla Reddy as well as the Government are wrong”. The order passed in the said writ petition has become final and no appeal was preferred either by the Government or by any individual. As per the said order passed by this Court, the entire land in Sy.no.209 belongs to the Government and if any sale deed executed by Pulla Reddy in favour of Md. Khasim Ali in the year 1979 is a void document. As the ownership vests with the Government from 26.7.1955, the question of the members of the petitioner-association acquiring ownership rights from Md. Khasim Ali and Pulla Reddy does not arise. Further, the ORC proceedings No.H/11650/1985 dated 5.2.1986 issued in favour of Khasim Ali were set aside by the Joint Collector vide No.F1/6906/A/1977 against the vendor of the members of the petitioner-association. Against the said orders, no revision was filed by the alleged vendor of the petitioner-association. In C.R.P. No.4223 of 2003, the order passed by the Joint Collector with regard to setting aside the ORC in favour of Md. Khasim Ali was not altered. The petitioner-association distorted the facts to suit their convenience. It is further stated that the alleged sale deed vide No.5696/79 dated 4.6.1979 cannot confer any right and title in favour of Khasim Ali. The vendor V. Pulla Reddy had no right and title to alienate the land in favour of Md. Khasim Ali as the said land is Government land in view of abolition of Inams. The ORC dated 5.2.1986 in favour of Md. Khasim Ali was illegal as his entire claim is based on the sale deed of 1979. Prior to that he was no way concerned with the subject land. Therefore, the question of enjoying the possession by him as on the date of vestingi.e. 1.11.1973 does not arise. Respondents 3 to 7, to meet their domestic and legal necessities, alienated the land to an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas and the vendees therein are enjoying the physical possession and ownership. The father of respondents 3 to 7 was enjoying the possession over the subject land for more than 50 years, being the protected tenant. There are no merits in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that suppressing all the above mentioned proceedings and the death of the vendor of members of the petitioner-association i.e. Late Md. Khasim Ali, respondents 3 to 7 have obtained ORC from 2nd respondent on 15.6.2005 claiming themselves as protected tenants and without filing any documentary proof and the 2nd respondent, without following the statutory requirements of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder, issued impugned ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 7, which is arbitrary and illegal. The orders of 1st and 2nd respondents are ex facie illegal and contrary to the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No. 661 of 1996, the order of 1st respondent in File No.F1/6960/1997 dated 22.12.2001 and the mandatory provisions of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Hence, this writ petition. Per contra, Sri Pulla Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7, strenuously contended that the sale deeds, if any, executed by Md. Khasim Ali in favour of the members of the petitioner-association will not confer any right whatsoever in their favour. In the instant case, as per their own version, the sale deeds were executed prior to 1976, in other words, prior to obtaining the O.R.C. The alleged purchase by Md. Khasim Ali during 1979 from V. Pulla Reddy is contrary to law and illegal. Further, V. Pulla Reddy i.e. the Inamdar himself had no right whatsoever to sell the land in favour of Md. Khasim Ali since the entire land vested in the Government with effect from 1.11.1973 and before obtaining any O.R.C. by the Inamdar or possessor, any sale of such inam land would be a nullity in the eye of law. On the other hand, the father of respondents 3 to 7 was enjoying the possession over the subject land for more than 50 years, being the protected tenant and respondents 3 to 7, to meet their domestic and legal necessities, alienated the land to an extent of Ac.14-13 guntas and the vendees therein are enjoying the physical possession and ownership. It is well settled that no vendee can get a better title than the vendor. Respondents 3 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land as the legal heirs of the protected tenant. They had approached the Inams Tribunal and the Inams Tribunal, after issuing notices to all the concerned and based on the record, passed orders dated 15.6.2005 in favour of respondents 3 to 7, granting O.R.C. in their favour. Further, respondent No.7 herein was also a respondent before the Inams Tribunal (respondent No.4) representing all the purchasers and the O.R.C. was issued thereafter. Subsequently, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of respondents 3 to 7. Whether Md. Khasim Ali was alive or dead would not have made any difference on the merits of the case before the Inams Tribunal. The presence of Md. Khasim Ali was not at all necessary as he had no right over the subject land and the ownership vested with the Government. It is the Government which is the owner of the subject property and as such any transaction between Pullareddy and Khasim Ali is not binding either on the Government on respondents 3 to 7. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is only an afterthought and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From the above rival contentions, it is clear that the dispute in this case is limited to the extent of land admeasuring Ac.14- 13 guntas in Sy.No.209 of Kuntloor village of Hayatnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Without going into all the details, it may be necessary to notice that from a bare look at the cause-title of the impugned order it is seen that though Md. Khasim Ali was shown as a party (since died), no effort was made by the R.D.O. either to make the legal heirs of late Md. Khasim Ali as parties or to serve any notice on them. Thus, the very order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice for the reasons, firstly, that Md. Khasim Ali, the vendor of the members of the petitioner-association was shown as dead person and, secondly, no efforts were made for bringing his legal representatives on record or issuing notices to any interested person on his behalf, namely, the petitioner herein. As submitted by the learned senior counsel Sri E. Manohar, aggrieved by the grant of O.R.C. in Proc.No.H/11650/85 dated 5.2.1986, the Authorised Officer filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, before 1st respondent, in File No.F1/6906/A/97, against the vendor of the members of the petitioner-association, with regard to the extent of Ac.14-13 guntas of land in Sy.No.209 of Kuntloor village. The 1st respondent-Joint Collector, by an order dated 22.12.2001 set aside the O.R.C. granted in favour of Md. Khasim Ali, the vendor of the members of the petitioner-association, and remanded the matter to 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District, for fresh enquiry, and directed 2nd respondent to issue fresh notices to all the concerned, afford opportunity of hearing and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. In fact, the said Md. Khasim Ali died on 19.4.1987 itself. This fact was not brought to the notice while passing the impugned order dated 15.11.2008. It appears, the Officer who passed the order on 22.12.2001 and the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 is one and the same. When the matter is remanded and the same is pending before 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, passing of the impugned order and the consequential orders does not arise. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting fresh enquiry along with the matter already remanded by 1st respondent-Joint Collector through his proceedings dated 22.12.2001. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, for fresh consideration and disposal, along with the matter which was remanded by 1st respondent-Joint Collector through his proceedings dated 22.12.2001, if not already disposed of, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notices to all the concerned, including the petitioner herein, and to pass common order in the above cases, as per law. It is further made clear that both the parties are permitted to raise all the questions of law and fact, as may be necessary, before 2nd respondent, and 2nd respondent shall consider all the questions of law and fact raised by both the parties and decide the matter, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made earlier in any order or in this writ petition. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. DATE: 27-12-2009. MVB.