IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8764 of 2008 Between: 1 M. Venkat Ratnam, S/o. Late Ankaiah, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3/1/A, Madhavanagar, Hyderabad. 2 M. Vengamma, W/o. Late Ankaiah, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3/1/A, Madhavanagar, Hyderabad. 3 Patallapalli Narasimha Rao, S/o. Subbaiah, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. Patallapalli Achamma, W/o. P. Vengala Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Hyderabad. 5 M. Rangaiah, S/o. Malakondaiah, R/o. Depura Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District. Rep by their GPA Holder Sri M. Kondaiah Chowdary, s/o. Vengaiah, aged 49 years, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3/1/A Madhavanagar, Hyderabad. 6 Patallapalli Srinivas, S/o. Late Patallapali Vengal Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 7 Patallapalli Sridhar, S/o. Late Patallapali Vengal Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 8 Patallapalli Subba Rao, S/o. Late Patallapali Vengal Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 9 Patallapalli Surya Prakash, S/o. Late Patallapali Vengal Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-2-836/3, Madhavanagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, At Attapur, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mamidi Yadi Reddy, S/o. Late Raji Reddy, R/o. Khanajiguda, H/o.Alwal Village, Malkajigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Sri M. Ravinder Reddy, The Reveneu Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, (now working in the office of the special officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Ranga Reddy 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. L/3590/2006, dated 25-2-2008 of the 1st respondent as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and vitiated by malafides. Counsel for the Petitioners :SMT.A.ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8764 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the order dated 25.02.2008, passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, the first respondent, in exercise of power under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Through that order, the first respondent granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioners had impleaded the Officer, who passed the impugned order, as respondent No.3. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that the land in question is part of Jagir, and that the provisions of the Act do not apply to such lands. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit, raising an objection, as to the very maintainability of the writ petition. He contends that the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the first respondent and have filed this writ petition without even seeking the leave of the Court. It is also his case that the order passed by the first respondent has been upheld by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, when challenged by two persons, by name, Khaja Naseeruddin, Khaja Munuruddin, sons of late Khaja Ahmeduddin; through order, dated 08.08.2008. Heard Smt.S.Anasuya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the first respondent, under the Act. The proceedings were adversarial in nature, and were heavily contested by the legal representatives of one Khaja Ahmeduddin. After discussing the matter at length, the first respondent passed the order, directing that the ORC be issued in favour of the second respondent. The contestants before the first respondent did not raise the plea, that the land in question is part of any Jagir. The petitioners feign ignorance of the proceedings before the first respondent and claim that they came to know about the order only it was passed. The principal ground urged by them is that the land is part of Jagir and the provisions of the Act do not apply to it. Notwithstanding the technical objection, that the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings, this Court insisted on the material, to prove that the land is part of Jagir. Except by making reference to the name of the village, which has a suffix of Jagir, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to place any notification issued under the Jagir Abolition Regulations, which discloses that the land is part of Jagir. At any rate, the aggrieved persons, who figured as parties to the proceedings, have approached the Appellate Authority, i.e. Joint Collector, and an order dated 08.08.2008 was passed in that appeal. The petitioners who are not parties to the said proceedings cannot stand on a higher footing, than the actual persons, who figured as respondents in the entire proceedings. They have, in a way, resorted to pressure tactics by impleading the Officer, who passed the order dated 25.02.2008, as a party respondent. It is not known as to whether any writ petition was filed before this Court against the order dated 08.08.2008, passed by the Joint Collector. If the petitioners are so advised, they can participate in such proceedings or file a writ petition against the said orders with the leave of the Court, and canvass their grievance. This Court does not find any basis to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16.02.2009. GJ