THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6522 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the order, dated 06.02.2007, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of power under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The facts relevant to this Writ Petition, in brief, are as under: An extent of Acs.49.39 guntas of land in survey No.279 (old), and new survey Nos.349 to 352 of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was held as Inam by one Sri Narsinga Rao. The father of the petitioners, by name Namasivayam, was permanent tenant of that land under a lease, granted sometime in the year 1910. The father of the petitioners died in 1938. During resurvey, in the year 1944, an extent of Acs.13.19 guntas was shown in survey Nos.349 to 352 and an extent of Acs.36.20 guntas was shown in survey Nos.602 and 603. Out of this, an extent of Acs.32.55 guntas was under lease in favour of the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, the 1st respondent, with effect from 25.02.1963. Consequent upon the abolition of inams, applications were made by the mother of the petitioners, the wife of the landholder and the 1st respondent for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs), under Section 7 of the Act. After several rounds of litigation, ORC came to be issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent, through proceedings, dated 25.04.1994; in respect of the entire land in favour of the petitioners. The matter was compromised between the petitioners and inamdars, wherein an extent of Acs.24.20 was in favour of the petitioners and Acs.12.00 in favour of the land owner/inamdar. The same was recorded by this Court in W.A.No.474 of 1999, through order, dated 20.04.1999. The same was implemented by the 3rd respondent through proceedings, dated 15.07.1999. The 1st respondent addressed a letter, dated 13.06.2002, to the 2nd respondent stating, inter alia, that out of Acs.24.20 guntas of land, in respect of which ORC was issued in favour of the petitioners, Acs.3.95 guntas was shown in GLR with the classification “C”, and in that view of the matter, it could not have been the subject-matter of ORC, in favour of the petitioners. He accordingly made a request that ORC in favour of the petitioners be restricted to Acs.20.55 guntas by deleting Acs.3.95 guntas. The 2nd respondent treated the letter as an appeal and issued notice of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. They have also advanced contentions, touching on facts and law. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal. He took the view that the very issuance of ORC in favour of the petitioners and the land owner in respect of the land in survey Nos.602 and 603 through proceedings, dated 15.07.1999, is untenable, on the ground that the petitioners and other owners were not in possession of the land as on the crucial date. It was indicated that the 1st respondent, who is in possession of the land, can maintain a claim as per Section 9 of the Act. It has already been mentioned that the 1st respondent did make an effort to secure an ORC for itself, vis-à-vis the land, but, however, did not fructify and it is evident from the order, dated 18.02.1980, passed by the 3rd respondent. In his order, dated, the 3rd respondent while dealing with the other piece of land held by the same inamdar in survey Nos.349 to 352, observed that the military parties are only the lessees of inamdars and do not have independent rights. The record does not disclose that any efforts were made by the 1st respondent to challenge the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, at any stage. The limited grievance ventilated by the 1st respondent in his letter, dated 13.06.2002, was about Acs.3.95 guntas of land in survey Nos.602 and 603. This letter was treated by the 2nd respondent as an appeal. The proceedings, dated 15.07.1999, were nothing, but the ORC issued in accordance with the directions in W.A.No.474 of 1999, dated 20.04.1999. It reads as under: “In accordance with the provisions of section (6) read with section 10 of the Act Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition Act, 1955. Smt.N.Rani Bai and Smt.N.Suguna Bai, daughters of late Smt.Kannamma residing at Alwal village shall be registered as occupants in respect of the land specified in the Schedule below and shall be liable to pay to Government an amount of Rs… towards premium in lumpsum. They/he shall also liable to pay Land Revenue Assessment in respect of the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Act in Section (6) Sub section (3).” The only way that could have been assailed even by the 1st respondent was by challenging the very compromise ordered by this Court in W.A.No.474 of 1999. As a result of compromise, there did not exist any possibility of challenging the order, dated 15.07.1999. However, the 2nd respondent entertained the appeal against it and passed an order, dated 15.11.2003, setting aside the proceedings, dated 15.07.1999 and directing the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry. The relevant portion reads as under: “In view of the above the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in case No.L/1299/99 dated 15.7.99 is set aside and remanded back to the Revenue Divisional officer Chevella for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” Strictly speaking, the 2nd respondent committed a Contempt of this Court by effacing the implementation of the order in W.A.No.474 of 1999. Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent took up the matter after remand, and passed a detailed order, dated 09.12.2004, pointing out as to how the claim made by the 1st respondent is untenable. Once again, the 2nd respondent entertained appeal preferred by the 1st respondent and allowed the same with the following directions: “Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed in Procgs.No.L/3901/2003, dt.9-12-2004 confirming Occupancy Rights Certificate granted in respect of Sy.No.602 & 603 for an extent of Acs.19-39 & 16-21 gts respectively vide L/1299/1999 Dated:15-07-1999 is set aside. The land being inam land, vest with state, upon abolition of Inams.” In the recent past, it has become a matter of routine course for the revenue authorities, particularly at the stage of Joint Collectors, to search ways, legal or otherwise, to avail every possible opportunity to get as much land, particularly urban land, as possible to the Government. It was immaterial whether the proceedings landed before them in the routine course of appeals and revisions or even by way of suo motu proceedings. One cannot understand the rationale behind the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. He did not have the basic discipline of honouring his own proceedings that ultimately became the subject matter of the orders of this Court in W.A.No.474 of 1999, or the outcome of the writ appeal, to which he was very much appeared as party, though not as a party to the compromise. He just forgot the manner in which the proceedings were initiated before him by the 1st respondent or the scope of the letter, dated 13.06.2002. Even assuming that there did not exist any legal or factual hurdle in accepting the request of the 1st respondent, the maximum that could have happened was, that the ORCs in respect of Acs.3.95 guntas of land be set at naught, and that the one, given to the petitioners be restricted to Acs.20.55 guntas. It was not even realized that the proceedings are under a specialized enactment and there is hardly any scope for the D.O. letters being treated as appeals. Ignoring these limitations, the 2nd respondent felt very much free grapple, on the rights of the petitioners that have accrued to them on account of adjudication under the Act by various authorities, including the 2nd respondent himself and by this Court. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the 2nd respondent had conducted the proceedings. The merits or otherwise of the claim of the 1st respondent could certainly have examined in a properly constituted proceedings. Its limited grievance was only about Acs.3.95 guntas of land, and separate proceedings ought to have been initiated in accordance with law, duly pleading the character of that piece of land. In such an event, the impact of the entries in GLR, vis-à-vis the rights under the Act, could have been considered. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. This Court would have given quietus to the proceedings herein, but for the fact that an order was passed by the 3rd respondent, on remand made by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to examine the matter strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act, duly taking into account the orders that have assumed finality in respect of the land. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:29.04.2009. GJ