IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13115 of 1998 Between: 1 Smt. Basharethunisa Begum Hasan Yar Jung, W/o. LAte Nawab Hasan Yar Jung, 1-8-412 to 415, Begumpet, Secunderabad. 2 Nawab Mohd, Ziauddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Hasan Yar Jung. 1-8-412 to 415, Begumpet, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Inams Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Sainath Estates (Pvt) Ltd., Rep. Director. 5-2-248, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Gautam Chand Jain, S/o. G.C.Jain. 6-3-1111, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Shantilala Jain, S/o. Jain. 6-3-111, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 5 M/s. Anupam Advertising (pvt)Ltd., 1-8-415, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 6 M/s. Essjay Developers (Pvt) Ltd., Rep. Director. 1-8-414, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 7 M/s. Autofin Limited, Rep. Partner. R.P.Road, Hyderabad. 8 Smt.Jaya S.Daga, S/o. S.N.Daga. 5-2-248/A/1/2/J, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9 Sri S.N.Daga, S/o. Narayan Das Daga, 5-2-248/A/1/2/J, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 10 Ms. Sunaina Daga, C/o. Narayana Das Daga. 5-2-248/A/1/2/J, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 11 MAster Siddartha Daga, S/o. S.N.Daga. 5-2-248/A/1/2/J, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 12 Sunanda Daga, C/o. S.N.Daga. 5-2-248/A/1/2/J, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 13 Sri Eqtedruddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Khairnawaz Jung, 1-8-321, Aiwan-E-Begumpet, Hyderabad. 14 Court of Wards, Off: Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, NAmpally Stn. Road. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for records in case No. L/1918/97 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order passed on 25/10/1997 in the case declaring that the said orders were illegal, against the provisions and principles and law and natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.MIR WAJID ALI KAMEEL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.MPAPA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 13115 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by an order made in Case No.L/1918/97 on the file of 1st respondent – Inams Tribunal-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rangareddy District dated 25.10.1997 whereunder the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, claiming O.R.C. are dismissed holding that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter since all the lands in question, claimed by the petitioners, fell under Section 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in a similar matter, this Court held that the R.D.O. has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lands covered under Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, the orders challenged therein were set aside. Now, this writ petition also is liable to be allowed on the same lines. It is further stated that the R.D.O. while holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter since the lands are squarely covered under Section 9 of the Act, had made certain observations narrating history of the case and referring to certain decisions referred to by the civil Courts earlier and those observations would come in the way of the petitioners in working out their remedies in the suits pending before the civil Courts and, therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the R.D.O. has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, rightly dismissed the applications by holding that the lands are covered under Section 9 of the Act. Though he had made certain observations, such observations are with regard are not binding on the civil Courts and, therefore, there is no necessity of interfering with the order passed by the 1st respondent. Thus, the only grievance of the petitioners appears to be that various suits and proceedings of the authorities, referred to in the order passed by 1st respondent, may prejudice the decisions of the civil Courts in the pending suits, and the same appears to be not far from truth. Once the 1st respondent refused to entertain the applications and passed orders holding that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the lands since they are covered under Section 9 of the Act, it ought not to have referred to the various judgments of the civil Courts and the other proceedings of the authorities under Act, which may prejudice the decisions of the civil Courts. Under those circumstances, while upholding the impugned order of the 1st respondent, it is made clear that any observations made in the impugned order, particularly referring to civil suits and other proceedings, shall not have any bearing on the decisions to be made by the civil Courts in the suits pending before them. However, if anybody relies upon such decisions or proceedings which are referred to in the impugned order, the same will have to be considered by the civil Courts on their own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made by 1st respondent. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 23-7-2009. MVB.