THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.25606 of 2001 14.9.2009 Between: Sarojini Devi, W/o.R.Anantha Reddi And another … Petitioners and The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.25606 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 24.12.2001 passed by the first respondent purportedly under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity). First petitioner is allegedly pattadar of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.7.19 guntas in survey No.6 and Acs.9.04 guntas in survey No.11 of Nagulapalli village of Parigi Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. One Pedda Buchanna was protected tenant of the land. It is the case of petitioners that protected tenant surrendered occupancy rights to first petitioner in File No.A.12/2817/54, dated 02.8.1954. Thereafter, first petitioner sold the lands to A.Chandraiah, husband of second petitioner. In 1985, one K.Jangaiah filed claim petition before second respondent for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the Act. During pendency of proceedings, he died and his legal heirs–respondents 3 to 6 herein; came on record. Second respondent passed orders on 02.12.1991 granting ORC in favour of respondents 3 to 6. Petitioners then preferred appeal under Section 24 of the Act to Joint Collector, who dismissed appeal on 30.9.1995. Petitioners then filed W.P.No.23397 of 1995. This Court allowed writ petition on 16.2.1999 and remanded the matter to Joint Collector to reconsider, after calling for File No.A.12/2817/54, dated 02.8.1954. Thereafter, after giving notice to both the parties, Joint Collector passed impugned order on 24.11.2001. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that Joint Collector did not consider file in which Buchanna surrendered tenancy rights, and therefore, impugned order is vitiated. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), after taking this Court through impugned order, submits that appellate authority has called for record from the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), who reported that tenancy file was not available, and therefore, the matter was decided based on the revenue record and various pahanies from 1964-1965. The case of first petitioner, who is original pattadar, is that land was in possession of protected tenant and the said tenant surrendered the land, which was accepted by proceedings dated 02.8.1954. The burden, therefore, lies on first petitioner to produce relevant order. When relevant order was produced before this Court, as is done in this case also, this Court directed Joint Collector to reconsider the matter, after summoning the file from MRO. When the file was summoned, MRO reported that the said file is not traceable. In the said circumstances, only option available to Joint Collector is to examine the order of Revenue Divisional Officer with reference to relevant records available. Joint Collector accordingly verified pahanies for fourteen years commencing from 1964-1965 and found that name of Nawazaiah is recorded as cultivating tenant. It was also found that after 1977-1978, Anjaneyulu, S/o.Jaggaiah, Ashok S/o.Nawazaiah and one Venkataiah were in possession of the said lands. From this, appellate authority drew an inference that grant of ORC to children of K.Jangaiah is justified. First petitioner herself admitted that the land was in occupation of protected tenant and in the absence of any valid surrender proceedings, there is no infirmity in granting ORC in favour of legal heirs of protected tenant. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) September , 2009 YS