IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10035 of 2000 Between: Sri Avadhoot Rao. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 and R.2. AGP for Endowments for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 15-4-2000 of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad, respondent No.1 herein, whereby he confirmed order dated 22-1-2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, respondent No.2 herein. The dispute pertains to certain lands comprised in Survey Nos.77,412,493,589,1538 and 1545 of Tadbiloli village, Nizamabad District. According to the petitioner, one Smt. Manikbai, the paternal aunt of the petitioner, was the holder of Ac.20.37 guntas of land in the aforesaid Survey Numbers; after her death the father of the petitioner-Dattu Baba succeeded to the said properties; and consequent upon his death the property devolved upon the petitioner and his two brothers, who relinquished their right in the said property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate (for short “ORC”) in respect of the above-mentioned property. Respondent No.2, by his order dated 22-1-2000 rejected the said request, which was confirmed by order dated 15-4-2000 passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, and perused the record. In his order dated 15-4-2000, respondent No.1 relied upon the entries in the Setwar, Khasra and Pahanis for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in coming to the conclusion that the lands, except to the extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.412, are Service Inam lands, in respect of which ORCs are required to be granted in favour of the Institution viz., Rama Swamy Dewal of Tadbiloli village. I have carefully gone through the entries extracted by respondent No.1 in his order. While the entries in the Sethwar described the lands as ‘Sarkari’ under the column Patta/Inam; the name of one Charan Shivapi was shown under the column Pattadar/Inamdar. In Khasra, Survey No.77 is described as Inam Mafi; Survey No.412 as Patta; Survey No.493 as Mafi Inam; Survey No.589 as Kidmathi Inam and Survey Nos. 1538 and 1545 as Ramula Pooja Inam under the column Patta/Inam and the name of Rajeswara Rao is shown under the column Pattadar/Inamdar. In the Pahanies for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 the word ‘Inam’ is mentioned in the column Patta/Inam and the name of Dathu Baba s/o.Venkatesh Baba is mentioned under the column Pattadar/Inamdar. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that he - apart from relying upon the opinion of the villagers, who are said to have opposed grant of ORCs., in the individual name of the petitioner – referred to and relied upon the succession statement sanctioned by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhodan on 6-2-1963, which showed the lands as conditional Service Inams attached to Ram Mandir. Though the succession statement had shown the property as conditional grant, the entries in Setwar and Khasra Pahani and Pahanies do not fully support the said succession statement. Only with respect to Survey Nos.1538 and 1545, admeasuring Ac.6.13 guntas and 10.20 guntas respectively; Khasra had shown them as belonging to Ramula Pooja Inam, while Setwar, which is equally a vital document, does not describe the said properties as belonging to the Institution. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter requires a thorough reconsideration. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Both the orders of respondents 1 and 2, which are assailed in this Writ Petition, are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the issue relating to the claim of the petitioner for grant of ORC by considering the entire revenue record. If he finds that the lands were held by the ancestors of the petitioner as on 1-11-1973 in their personal capacity and not as a Service Inam, he shall grant ORC in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall decide the issue within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ------------------------------ ---------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:21-07-2008 MNR