IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 32231 of 1997 Between: 1. N. Mailaiah, S/o. Pentaiah, 2. N. Krishnaiah, S/o. Narasimhlu. 3. N. Balraj (since deceased) per LRs 4 & 5. 4. N. Narsimha, S/o. N. Balraj. 5. N. Jangaiah, S/o. N. Balraj. 6. N. Balamma, W/o. Yellappa. 7. N. Parvathamma, W/o. Pentaiah. (All Petitioners, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family) …Petitioners AND 1. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. N. Satyanarayana. 3. N. Anjaneyulu. 4. N. Raghunath. (All Respondents 2 to 4 S/o. Late Narsimhulu) 5. N. Sailu, S/o. late Ramaiah. (All R/o. Shadnagar Village & Mandal, 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 order, direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of certiorari by quashing the proceedings of Joint Collector the Respondent No. 1 in file No. Case No. B2/5/1994, dated: 28-06-1997 as ultravires of the Constitution of India and further declare the same as bad, illegal, unjust, unenforceable and against Principles of natural Justice, in the interest of justice and any other relief or reliefs deemed fit be granted; The petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed therein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Muralidhar Rao, Advocate for the petitioners, and of G.P for Revenue for the Respondent No. 1, and of Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3, the Court made the following ORDER: “Despite the fact the this Court heard both the counsel at length, it could not come any just conclusion as to whether the respondents are the real protected tenants or not. ..2.. Similarly, it is also not clear as to whether the respondents are in possession of the entire extent of land or not. Before dealing with this issue, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in my considered view, ought to have decided these two issues and passed an order either way. Without doing so, simply basing on Section 3 (2) (h) and (i) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order holding that the respondents are not entitled to claim any right over the property and thus issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of the petitioners herein. Similarly, these two aspects are not decided even by the appellate authority; might be these two aspects were not canvassed before the appellate authority. However, without deciding these two issues, it is not possible for this court to determine the question as to whether the subsequent purchasers i.e. the petitioners are entitled to have the ORC or the respondents, the alleged protected tenants. For the purpose of resolving this issue, both the orders can be set aside and the matter can as well be remanded to the RDO, for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. But, that may be again driving the parties to litigate the matter for few more years and hence keeping the matter pending here, this Court thinks fit to direct the RDO, Mahabubnagar, to hold an enquiry into the following aspects. 1) Whether the respondents are the protected tenants or not, and if so since when? 2) If the answer to the above question is yes. The RDO shall also give a finding as to what is the extent of land held by the respondents i.e. the so- called protected tenants. 3) The RDO shall also send up the report as to what was the extent held by the protected tenants i.e. the respondents herein, as on 01-11-1973. The RDO, Mahabubnagar shall give sufficient opportunity to both the patties to advance their case and thereafter shall prepare a report and send it to this Court within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners as well as the respondents are hereby directed to cooperate with the RDO, without seeking any adjournments. Immediately after the receipt of the report, the matter may be posted for hearing”. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. T h e Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District (BY RPAD) 2. The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District at Mahabubangar . 3. N. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Narsimhulu, R/o. Shadnagar Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District ..3.. 4. N. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Late Narsimhulu, R/o. Shadnagar Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District 5. N. Raghunath, S/o. Late Narsimhulu, R/o. Shadnagar Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District 6. N. Sailu, S/o. late Ramaiah, R/o. Shadnagar Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 7. N . Mailaiah, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family) 8. N . Krishnaiah, S/o. Narasimhlu, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family) 9. N . Narsimha, S/o. N. Balraj, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family). 10. N . Jangaiah, S/o. N. Balraj, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family). 11. N . Balamma, W/o. Yellappa, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family). 12. N . Parvathamma, W/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Joint Family). 13. The Section Officer, Writ Filing Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 14. Tw o CCs to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 15. One CC to Sri T. Muralidhar Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 16. One CC to Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 17. One spare copy. Ksv HIGH COURT Ksv Date of drafting: 20-07-2007 TGKJ DATE: 12-07-2007 NOTE: POST IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECIEPT OF REPORT FROM RDO MAHABUBNAGAR ORDER W.P.NO. 32231 OF 1997 DIRECTION