HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29064 of 2010 Date : 23-11-2010 Between : Veeraboyena Nagamallaiah and others .. Petitioners and The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri M.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside Memo dated 11-11-2010 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioners made an application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short, “ORC”), in respect of Ac.0-39 guntas in Sy.No.146 of Chandanagar village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. By the impugned Memo, respondent No.1 has rejected the said application of the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.2 has reported that the property falls under his administrative control and that the same is vested in Hanuman Deval of Chandanagar village. At the hearing, Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended and in my view rightly, that before rejecting the petitioners’ claim for ORC, respondent No.1 has not caused proper enquiry to be held after giving notice to the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that except calling for a report from respondent No.2, no formal enquiry was held by respondent No.1 and that no notice was issued to the petitioners. Under Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), the Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which an inamdar, Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as the case may be and decide in whose favour and in respect of which inam lands the claims should be allowed and the land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands. In my opinion, the enquiry under Section 10 of the Act should include examination of all the records and giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. Respondent No.1 has followed summary procedure by calling for a report from respondent No.2 and rejecting the petitioners’ application based on such report. Unless the petitioners are put on notice on the purported report of respondent No.2 and given an opportunity to meet its contents apart from placing reliance on the documents in support of their claim for ORC, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has satisfied the requirements of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned Memo cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for a de novo enquiry as envisaged under Section 10 of the Act by giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing a fresh order thereafter. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 23-11-2010 AM