HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1441 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.D5/194/2003, dated 28.12.2004, and quash the same. According to the petitioners, their grandfather late Kothlapuram Laxmaiah was the protected tenant of the lands totally admeasuring Ac.9.19 gts. in Sy.Nos.85 to 89 situated at Upperpally village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which were originally Inam lands, and one late Smt.Zainat Bibi was the Inamdar of the said lands. After the demise of their grandfather and their father, they succeeded to the said property, by order dated 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. It is the case of the petitioners that on coming to their notice that the classification of their lands was incorrectly recorded as “Kharij Katha” in the pahanies from 1955-58 to 1973-74, they submitted an application before the 1st respondent, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent passed order, dated 13.03.2000, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to conduct appropriate inquiry and pass orders. The Revenue Divisional Officer, as per the orders dated 13.03.2000, conducted comprehensive enquiry and issued Occupancy Rights Certificate on 11.09.2000 under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘Inams Act, 1955), in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.29 ½ gts in favour of the petitioners, and the same was subsequently revised by another Occupancy Rights Certificate issued on 09.05.2001, for the land to an extent of Ac.9.19 gts. While that being so, the 1st respondent has taken up a suo moto revision invoking the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971’) and, ultimately, passed order dated 28.12.2004 under Section 9 of the Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, setting aside the orders/Occupancy Rights Certificates issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in favour of the petitioners and directing the 2nd respondent to take over the possession of the subject land and send compliance to the Collector separately. Further, the 2nd respondent was instructed to verify the LG cases pending if any from the year 1990-91 onwards and take suitable steps in the matter and the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, was directed to take steps to report to the Government regarding irregularities committed by the 2nd respondent and Revenue Divisional Officer in the matter as narrated in the order. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent has no authority under law to set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted under the Inams Act, 1955, by invoking the provisions under the Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates under Section 7 read with Section 10 of Inams Act, 1955, in respect of the subject lands, and the 1st respondent has set aside the said Occupancy Rights Certificates by invoking the provisions of Pattedar Passbooks Act, which Act is altogether different from Inams Act, 1955. If the 1st respondent seeks to set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted in favour of the petitioners on the ground of legality or that the lands are Kharij Katha lands, it is always open to the competent authority to initiate proceedings by invoking appropriate provisions of law, for cancellation of the said certificates, but not under the provisions of Pattedar Passbooks Act, as is done in the present case. Thus, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the 1st respondent. However, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate steps, if any advised, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v/ksp