THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16689 of 2008 ORDER: It appears that, in the recent past, the officials of the revenue department have been imparted special training to resume to Government as much land as possible, so that it can be made available for special Economic Zones or for Companies, Indigenous or Foreign, or in some cases individuals also. Enactments, such as the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and A.P. Abolition of Inams Act, be it, of Telangana Area or Andhra area, have become very handy. Every possible opportunity was availed, in this context, irrespective of the purport thereof. This case presents one such instance. The Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC) were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, the second respondent, in respect of an extent of about Acs.28.00 of land in survey Nos.367 and 368 of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through proceedings dated 24.01.2004, in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner, Smt.Sageerunnisa, Smt.P.Sunanda and respondent No.7 filed separate appeals before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent, under Section 24 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), claiming that they too are entitled to be granted ORCs, by virtue of their possession and enjoyment. Through his order, dated 24.02.2007, the first respondent held that though the land is covered by the provisions of the Act, it is impermissible to grant ORCs in respect thereof, on the ground that it was not under cultivation. In effect, he found fault with the very issuance of ORCs, in favour of respondents 3 to 6. He opined that the lands vested in the State and directed the MRO, to safeguard them. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri G.V.Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6. After conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the second respondent granted ORCs in favour of respondents 3 to 6 through orders, dated 24.01.2004. The grievance of the petitioner was that, he too is entitled to be granted ORC. In the appeal preferred by them before the first respondent, the only controversy was whether the petitioner and other appellants were entitled to be granted ORCs. There is no provision for filing of appeals by the officials of the department against the orders granting pattas or ORCs, under the present Act. At any rate, none of the agencies of the Government have complained about the issuance of ORCs in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The only area of dispute before the first respondent was as to whether the petitioner is also entitled to be granted ORC. The nature and character of the land was never in issue before him. Obviously because the land is surrounding Hyderabad city and the Government is in dire need of it, either for sale or for assignment to individuals or agencies, the first respondent availed the opportunity to go into the very permissibility of granting ORCs. It appears that, he wanted to get a reward or a pat from the Government for procuring such valuable land and passed the impugned order crossing all limits of prudence. This Court takes serious exception to the way the first respondent has conducted the proceedings. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, and adjudication shall be confined only to the rival claims between the petitioner and other appellants, on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 6, on the other hand. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:19.03.2009. GJ