HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27347 OF 2009 Dated: 16-12-2009 Between: Villagers of Lingareddypally Village, rep., by K. Satyanarayana Goud, son of K. Laxminarayana Goud, aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist, r/o Lingareddypally Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy and nine others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27347 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed by the villagers of Lingareddypally Village purporting to question the legality and validity of order dated 22-03-2006 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he dismissed the purported appeal filed by the petitioner against Original Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) issued in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 10 as far back as the year 1986. The dispute pertains to certain extents of lands comprised in Survey Nos.206, 208, 209, 210 and 211. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 have claimed that they have purchased the above mentioned lands through registered sale deed dated 08-02-1984 for a valuable consideration from the original owners. In pursuance of the said purchase, they applied to respondent No.3 for grant of ORC under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. In the year 1986, ORC was granted in favour of the said respondents. Nearly eight years thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No.2 against the grant of ORC. The said representation was taken on file as an appeal. When notices in the appeal were given, the villagers did not participate in the proceedings. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 contested the said appeal. By order dated 22-03-2006, respondent No.2 rejected the appeal by rendering a categorical finding that the revenue records such as Vasool baqui of the year 1952 describe the land as Dastagarda inam and showed the name of Gosaiah Chowhesmi as the owner and possessor of the land in question. More than three and half years later, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said order of respondent No.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the very initiation of proceedings by respondent No.2 at the instance of the petitioner treating the representation as an appeal itself was totally unwarranted and misconceived. Admittedly, the temple to which the land allegedly belongs has not questioned the grant of ORC in favour of the private respondents. The petitioner being villagers cannot claim that they have locus to question the grant of ORCs in favour of the private respondents. At the most they should have sensitized the religious institution to take appropriate steps for questioning the grant of ORCs within the period of limitation. Even in the appeal, no representation appeared to have been made on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the appeal. Respondent No.2 by a reasoned order rejected the appeal by holding that the relevant revenue record clearly shows that the property was an inam land belonging to a private person. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by respondent No.2, more so, when the institution has not questioned the grant of ORCs in favour of the private respondents. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 35612 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16-12-2009 ks