M.Anjaiah 2 Others vs The Joint Collector 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1054 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

               WRIT APPEAL No.374 OF 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

30.04.2010         passed       by     the     learned       Single    Judge     in

W.P.No.10448 of 2010.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ

petition was preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners stating

that they are in possession of land admeasuring Ac.2-05 guntas

situated in Survey No.5 of Marpallyguda, Hamlet of Edulabad

Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.                           It was

further stated in the writ petition that respondent Nos.3 to 8

have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy

East Division, Ranga Reddy District (Inams Tribunal) for grant

of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) and by an order dated

31.03.2006, an order was passed conferring ORC on respondent

Nos.3 to 8 in respect of land in Survey Nos.5, 11, 22, 35, 39, 45,

46, 47, 749, 750, 751 and 936 holding that they are legal heirs

of original inamdar, Syed Ahmed Yousufuddin. An appeal was

preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners and the same was

dismissed by an order dated 09.09.2008. Before the learned

Single Judge, it was argued that in the pahanies for the years

1972-73 to 1978, it is mentioned that "Kurmavallu" are in

possession of the property and as the petitioners are

Kurmavallu, no such ORC could have been issued in the

matter. The learned single Judge has declined to interfere with

the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that ORC has

been issued in favour of the legal heirs of original inamdar. The

learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that the

disputed questions of facts, such as the factum of possession,

whether the appellants/writ petitioners were Kurmavallu or not,

cannot be looked into in a writ petition and has declined to

interfere in the matter.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in respect of

disputes questions of facts relating to possession and also in

respect of the fact whether the appellants/writ petitioners were

Kurmavallu or not, no order could have been passed in exercise

of writ jurisdiction.

Resultantly, the present writ appeal is dismissed with a

liberty to take recourse to the other remedies available under

the civil law.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

07.03.2022 JSU