THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.138 of 2006 04.1.2006 Between: N.Ranga Chary, S/o.Sesha Chary And others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector II, Ranga Reddy District And others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.138 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners assail the orders of the first respondent dated 06.8.2005 passed in exercise of powers under Section 24 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, as being illegal, arbitrary and seek the relief of setting aside the impugned order. The petitioners allege that their father, N.Sesha Chary, was poojari of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, the third respondent herein. He was allegedly granted inam by the Jagirdar long ago for rendering service as poojari. The inam of Sesha Chary was allegedly entered in Kasara Pahani as pattadar. The petitioners filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)-cum-Inams Tribunal seeking Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) and registration of the petitioners as occupants in respect of the lands in survey Nos.39, 107, 194, 197, 233, 234, 235, 441 and 442 of Gundla Pochampally Village of Medchal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. By proceedings dated 03.12.2003, the second respondent issued ORC in Form III. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, who by proceedings dated 11.12.2003 directed the Village Secretary of Gundla Pochampally to incorporate the name of the petitioners in the pahani for the year 2003-2004. The third respondent temple preferred appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the first respondent against ORC issued by the RDO on 03.12.2003. A notice was issued to the petitioners and they were not present at the time of hearing. The Joint Collector, having noticed the record, found that the third respondent temple was registered as religious institution under Section 38 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Endowments Act, for brevity) and was shown to be in possession of the lands in various survey numbers. Accordingly, he applied the provisions to sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and held that ORC issued to the petitioners by the RDO is void, as the lands are endowments lands. This order of the Joint Collector is challenged in the writ petition, as noticed supra. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.Hari Haran, vehemently contends that Kasara Pahani for the year 1954-1955 and the revenue records from 1973 onwards consistently show the petitioners as pattadars and possessors and therefore, the Joint Collector committed an error in relying on the register of endowments. Secondly, he would urge that the land was granted to the father of the petitioners for his services as poojari and being service inam, the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) relies on Section 4(1) of the Act and submits that the grant of ORC in respect of land belonging to charitable religious institution at any time is rendered void and therefore no interference is called for in this matter. A reading of the two Provisios under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act would show that where inam land is held by or for the benefit of the religious institution, no person shall be entitled to be registered as occupant. The second proviso further provides that even if such registration is made, the same shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration. In this case, as a question of fact, it was found that as per the register maintained under Section 38 of the Endowments Act, the lands in question were registered in the imams of the temples/temple complexes and therefore, being archakas of the temple, the petitioners cannot get any right for ORC. Recognition of the petitioners as occupants of the lands is squarely barred by the first proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is unexceptionable. The remedy of the petitioners lies in approaching the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for Endowments under Section 87(1)(c) of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, to seek appropriate declaration, in regard to nature of vesting of lands. The writ petition, with the above observation, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) January 04, 2006 YS