IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19827 of 2008 Between: Vadla Anthaiah S/o. Chinnaiah R/o. Tummalapally (V), Kondurg(M), Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahabubnagar. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar. 3 Vadla Monaiah S/o. Late Buchaiah R/o. Tummalapally (V), Kondurg (M), Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Vadla Narayana S/o. Late Buchaiah R/o. Tummalapally (V), Kondurg (M), Mahaboobnagar District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ or order more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in case. No.F2/1A-05/2007 dated 24-4-2008 and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per the provisions of law and may pass any such further order or orders which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.HARISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) dated 28.1.1994 issued by the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in favour of respondents 3 and 4 under Section 4(1) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the lands in Sy.No.53, 150 in an extent of Ac.1.13 guntas and Ac.6.26 guntas respectively of Vanampally Village, Kondurg Mandal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material produced before this Court. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not aware of the issuance of the Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and as soon as he came to know about the same, he filed an appeal before the Joint Collector seeking to set aside the certificate and also sought for a direction to conduct fresh enquiry but the same was rejected. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that as per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the subject matter of land has been classified as Chouta Inam and one Sri Vadla Buchaiah has been recorded as Inamdar in respect of the said land. He died leaving behind three sons viz., Vadla Monaiah, Vadla Chinnaiah and Vadla Narayana. Petitioner is the son of Vadla Chinnaiah who also died. It is further stated that Sri Vadla Narayana and Vadla Monaiahi, both the sons of Late Buchaiah (Inamdar) have filed an application requesting to confer Occupancy Rights in respect of the subject matter of lands and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner herein appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and deposed that he has no share in the subject matter of property and that he has been given some other lands in Thummalapalli Village of Kondurg Mandal and that he has no objection if the ownership rights in respect of the subject matter of lands are conferred in favour of respondents 3 and 4 as per their shares under the provisions of the Act. In view of the above counter averments, to verify the same, this Court directed the appearance of the concerned officer with relevant record and accordingly the record is produced before the Court. The sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded in page No.33 of the enquiry report, which shows that the petitioner himself admitted that he has no objection for granting occupancy right certificate in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the subject matter of lands and this Court with a naked eye compared the signature made by the petitioner in the said statement as also the signature made in this writ petition. Both the signatures are one and the same. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the enquiry conducted as also the issuance of the impugned certificate cannot be accepted. That apart, there is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the respondents that after conducting enquiry only, the impugned certificate was granted. For the forgoing reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the order granting Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the subject matter of lands. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J msv. 21.11.2008