THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.22942 of 2001 ORDER : Assailing the orders dated 11-06-2001 in proceedings No.F1/4970/97 of the first respondent – Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. The petitioners claim that the total land admeasuring to an extent of Acs.33.12 guntas in Sy.Nos.50, 52, 53, 54, 65, 66 and 67 situated at Mamidipally, Saroornagar Mandal is an inam land in respect of which one Madanraj Marvadi was the inamdar. The petitioners stake this claim based on Sisala pahani of the year 1956-1958. They approached the second respondent and filed a petition under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and sought for Occupancy Rights Certificate. The second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer apparently conducted an enquiry and on a finding that the land was in the possession of one, Harikishan as on the crucial date i.e., 01-11-1973 and based on the pahani for the year 1989-1990, which apparently revealed the names of the petitioners 2 and 3, allowed the petition and granted occupancy rights. Therein, the second respondent observed that objections were not received within the stipulated time opposing the grant of the Occupancy Rights Certificate sought for by the petitioners. Primarily on this premise the aforesaid occupancy certificate was granted. The fifth Respondent claiming himself to be the sole trustee of Sri Balaji Venkateswaraswamy Temple, Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, invoking the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, filed Appeal No.F1/4970/97 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the said appeal the fourth respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District, was impleaded as a respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 put up a claim that the aforementioned lands have been endowed to the temple and the land being temple land, the petitioners should not have been granted occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. The Joint Collector accepted the contention of the respondents 4 and 5 and allowed the appeal by orders dated 11-06-2001. That is how this Writ Petition has come to be filed. Heard Smt.Bhagyamma representing Venkata Thippa Reddy and the learned Government Pleader appearing for R1 to R4, Sri Ch.Satish Kumar for R5 and Sri B.Madhav Reddy for R6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the first respondent allowed the appeal without appreciating the entire record including the record produced by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The only record which was looked into by the Joint Collector was the Inams Register produced by the fourth respondent herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the said record was produced for the first time in the appeal on account of which the petitioners had no opportunity to dispute the correctness of the said register. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar as well, submitted that the petitioners obtained the orders from the second respondent herein without impleading the temple and as such on invoking the appellate remedy, material was filed at the appellate stage. They further submitted that production of material at the appellate stage in the circumstances is justified. They also submitted that under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act, there is a legal prohibition for granting occupancy rights in respect of the lands endowed to the temple. On a perusal of the orders of the second respondent it is apparent that the R2 granted occupancy rights certificate on the basis of the pahanies for the year 1989-1990. Although the second respondent observed that one Harikishan was in the possession of the lands as on the crucial date i.e., 01- 11-1973, the said finding is not based on any record. Be that as it may, it is true that the respondents 4 and 5 produced the inam register for the first time before the appellate authority. Admittedly, the respondents 4 and 5 were not parties before the second respondent. It is discernable that both parties had no proper opportunity to answer the dispute against each other. In these circumstances, all the learned counsel admit that orders of R1 and R2 are perfunctory and agree that the matter requires a detailed and fresh enquiry by the second respondent herein. The learned Counsel submit that the matter might be remanded for fresh consideration. In the aforesaid circumstances, while agreeing with the submission of all the learned counsel that the orders under challenge are perfunctory and require remand for fresh consideration, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the first respondent dated 11-06-2001 in File No.F1/4970/97 as also the orders of the second respondent dated 12-04- 1993 in File No.J/2234/92. The matter is remanded to the second respondent with a direction to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to both parties. It is made clear that both parties are entitled to produce such material as they think fit in support of their respective claims. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 01st April, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.22942 of 2001 Date : 01-04-2010 Between : Smt.Chandrakantabai and two others .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad and five others .. Respondents