The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.8551 of 2006 Dated 29th July, 2010 Between: M.Narayana Murthy …Petitioner And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and 11 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Tulasi Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: Mr.K.Mohanlal Counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order, dated 17-12-2005, passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, and Sri K.Mohanlal, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. None appeared for the remaining respondents. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner claims to be the successor of late Mashetty Narsimhulu, who was a protected tenant in respect of Ac.60-00 of land in Malkajgiri Village. The protected tenant is stated to have died in the year 1963. According to the petitioner, a compromise was effected between him and the inamdars on 15-02-1978, whereunder he has relinquished Ac.57-00 out of Ac.60-00 and in lieu thereof, the inamdars have given no objection for granting Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) in his favour over an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas situated in Survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1. As no action was taken by respondent No.2 for granting ORC in his favour since 1978, the petitioner is stated to have made an application therefor in the year 2000 with a delay application. Respondent No.2- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, by his order, dated 06-10-2001, held that out of Ac.3-04 guntas, for which the petitioner made the application for grant of ORC, Ac.0-20 guntas became uncultivable being occupied by road. Accordingly, ORC was granted over an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas. Assailing the said order, respondent Nos.3 to 12 filed an appeal before respondent No.1- Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.1 had addressed letter, dated 16- 11-2001 to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, requiring him to inspect the lands in survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1 and submit a detailed report regarding the existence of structures and mosque etc., over the said lands. Accordingly, the Assistant Director submitted his report, dated 29-11-2001. Thereafter, after hearing the parties concerned, respondent No.1 by his order, dated 08-04- 2002, allowed the appeal in part by upholding the order of respondent No.2 granting ORC in favour of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas in survey No.428/1 and Ac.1-03 guntas in survey No.429/1 and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for holding a denovo enquiry to the extent of Ac.0-22 guntas, with the direction that he shall call for a report from the authority higher than the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, and pass appropriate orders. Questioning the said order, respondent Nos.3 to 12 filed W.P.No.13368 of 2004, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to respondent No.2 by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 27-11-2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.A.No.2295 of 2003, and a Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 30-12-2003, set aside order, dated 08-04-2002, of respondent No.1- appellate authority and remanded the matter to him to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. It was further directed that notice on the learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 10 therein (respondent Nos.3 to 12 herein) shall be deemed to be sufficient service of notice. After remand, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 17-12-2005, allowing the appeal in toto and setting aside the order of respondent No.2 granting ORC in favour of the petitioner. This order is called in question in the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has committed a serious illegality in setting aside the ORC granted in favour of the petitioner by completely misconstruing the report, dated 25-11-2001, of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Counsel submitted that according to the said report, only an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas was covered by road, houses and mosque on the southern side of the lands comprised in survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1 and that out of the remaining extent of Ac.2-02 guntas, an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas is covered by boulders and sheet rock. Accordingly, he had submitted that there can be no justification to set aside the ORC granted for the rest of the land. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri K.Mohanlal, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.4 & 5 and respondent No.6 respectively advanced their submissions. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 has passed on the certified copy of the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, along with the sketch. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 relied on a judgment of this Court in A.P.Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District[1], wherein it was held that the Collector will have jurisdiction to decide the claims for grant of ORCs under Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), only if the lands were put to agricultural use and that once the land is found to be not under cultivation, the Collector ceases to have power to deal with the same under the said provision of the Act and that the Legislature, in its wisdom, mandated that the adjudication of the claims in relation to the building and non- agricultural inam lands be undertaken by a specialized forum and not by the Collector. Purporting to apply the said ratio to the facts of the present case, respondent No.1 observed that the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records revealed that the land in question is covered by structures, houses and mosques and therefore, grant of ORC under the Act by respondent No.2- primary authority in favour of the petitioner is not permissible as the same was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. On this premises, respondent No.1 had set aside the order of respondent No.2 granting ORC in respect of Ac.2-24 cents to the petitioner. In the report, dated 29-11-2001, produced by the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 before this Court, it is stated as under: “I invite kind attention to the reference cited, it is submitted that as per the instructions I have visited the spot bearing Sy.No.428/1 and 429/1 of Malkajigiri Village. After verification of the boundaries of the said Sy.Numbers it is noticed that a road is passing through these Sy.Numbers, which leads from Moula-Ali to Safilguda. Out of the total extent of Ac.3.04 guntas of Sy.No.428/1 and 429/1 an extent of Ac.1.02 guntas is covered by road, Houses, Mosque in southern side of these Sy.Numbers. Out of the remaining extent Ac.2.02 guntas is being follow, including the extent about 0-20 acres is covered with boulders and sheet Rock. A sketch to drawn showing the Road and the structures is enclosed herewith.” A careful reading of the above-reproduced portion of the report, shows that out of Ac.3.04 guntas in survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1, an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas is covered by road, houses and mosque and out of the balance extent of Ac.2-02 guntas, which is fallow, an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas is covered with boulders and sheet rock. The respondents have not disputed the contents of this report whereas the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his client has filed revenue record such as pahanis etc., to show that the entire land is being cultivated. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to render a specific finding with respect to the claim of the petitioner whether the entire extent of Ac.2-02 guntas is being cultivated or not. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has filed any objection to the above-mentioned report submitted by the Assistant Director. Therefore, unless the petitioner has raised objections to the said report, the contents thereof cannot be disputed at this stage. Accordingly, this Court has no reason to discard the contents of the said report. As noted above, it is evident from the said report that out of Ac.3-04 guntas, an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas alone is covered by road, houses, mosque etc., and Ac.2-02 guntas is free from any such structures. It is not found by the Assistant Director that except Ac.0-20 guntas, remaining extent of Ac.2-02 guntas is not cultivable, though he used the expression fallow, which indicates that at the time of his inspection it was not cultivated. Merely because the land was left fallow, the same cannot be treated as uncultivable or non- agricultural land. As regards the extent of Ac.0-20 guntas, as it is shown that the same is covered by boulders and sheet rock, the said extent cannot be treated as cultivable land vesting jurisdiction in respondent No.2 to grant ORC under Section 4 of the Act. It is for the petitioner to make a claim before the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the contents of the report of the Assistant Director, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to ORC to the extent of Ac.1-22 guntas treating the same as agricultural land. Respondent No.1 has failed to consider the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, in proper perspective and has committed a serious error in misconstruing the said report by holding that the entire land is covered by structures/houses/mosque. In this view of the matter, the order of respondent No.1, setting aside the order of respondent No.2 granting ORC to the extent of Ac.1-22 guntas in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and the order of respondent No.2 to the above extent is restored, leaving the petitioner free to approach the prescribed authority for grant of ORC in respect of Ac.0-20 guntas, said to have been occupied by boulders and sheet rock. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. As a sequel, WVMP.No.1060 of 2006 in/& WPMP.No.10899 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 29th July, 2010 lur [1] 2004 (5 ) ALD 644