THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITOIN NO.31566 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in issuing occupancy rights certificate to others in respect of the petitioners’ lands in Sy.No.194/8/1 at Begumpet village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, as arbitrary and illegal; and to consequently direct them not to issue occupancy rights certificates in respect of the said lands. Petitioners, two in number, are the sons of one Mohammed Dawood Ali. It is their case that their father was the pattadar of Ac.25.00 gts of land in Sy.No.194/8/1 at Begumpet village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District; their father’s name was recorded in the pahanies for the years 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1971-72, 1979-80, 1982-83 and 1989-90; the Government, vide memo dated 19.2.2008, had classified Sy.Nos.194/1 to 194/2 as the private properties of lady Vicar; the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, vide proceedings dated 18.7.2009, had held that occupancy rights certificates, under Section 4 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), was not permissible in respect of the subject lands; and he had set aside the order passed by the R.D.O., Chevalla dated 25.10.1997. The petitioners would admit that their father, who was arrayed as the 16th respondent in the appeal before the Joint Collector, passed away in the October, 2010. It is their grievance that, when they approached the respondent authorities in respect of their properties, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were now inducting, and creating third party interests; they were making entries and inserting the names of others for issuing proceedings for occupancy rights certificates; and, by virtue of the orders passed by the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent did not have power or jurisdiction to issue occupancy rights certificates in favour of others in respect of the subject property. The proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 18.7.2009 is an appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act against the order of the R.D.O, Chevalla dated 25.10.1997 in respect of lands in Sy.No.194/8/1 admeasuring Ac.24-00 situated at Begumpet village, Balanagar mandal, Rangareddy District. In his order dated 18.07.2009, the 1st respondent noted that the R.D.O. had stated, in his order dated 25.10.1997, that as per the Khasara Pahani 1954- 55, the land in Sy.No.194/8/1 of an extent of Ac.24-00 was vacant on the date of vesting i.e., 1.11.1973; on perusal of the village records it was found that there was no personal cultivation from the date of vesting; and, in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the entire extent of land in Sy.No.194/8/1 stood vested in Government. After referring to Section 9 of the Act, and the judgment of this Court in A.P. Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad[1], the 1st respondent held that, since buildings had come up in the said land and the subject lands were used for non-agricultural purposes, the question of granting occupancy rights certificates in respect of lands converted into non-agricultural use did not arise. He further held that, in respect of cases covered by Section 9 of the Act, the revenue authorities could not exercise jurisdiction. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the R.D.O. dated 25.10.1997. As has been fairly admitted by the petitioners herein, their father was the 16th respondent in the appeal before the 1st respondent and, as such, the order of the Joint Collector dated 18.7.2009 is binding on him, and on his successors in interest including the petitioners herein. Even according to the petitioners their father died only in October, 2010 much after the Joint Collector passed the order on 18.7.2009. It is not even the case of the petitioners, as is evident from the averments in the writ affidavit, that in the pahanies for the year 1972-73 their father’s name is recorded either as the pattadar or that he was in possession of the subject lands. It is not even their case that, as on 01.11.1973, they were in occupation or in possession of the subject lands. Further, as held by the Joint Collector, buildings in inam lands or lands used for non-agricultural purposes would vest in the person who owned it immediately before the date of vesting. In any event, the petitioners have not chosen to implead those, who they allege were being granted occupancy rights certificates by respondents 2 and 3, as party respondents in this Writ Petition. Viewed from any angle the Writ Petition as filed is misconceived, and is devoid of merits. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 02 -12- 2011 asp [1] 2004(5) ALD 644