2. W.P.No.8652 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners i.e, Smt. Zainab
Certificates (ORCs) to the petitioners. Smt.Zainab Bee and others
also filed Writ Petition No.3098 of 2024 seeking similar relief.
3. W.P.No.27953 of 2022 is filed by petitioners i.e, Sri Madugula
4. W.P.No.2923 of 2023 is filed by Sri Madugula Bikshapathi and
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the mutation of the names
of respondent No.4 i.e, Smt. Zainab Bee in respect of land
admeasuring Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/1 and Ac.1.19 gts in
Sy.No.253, the name of Respondent No.5 i.e, Md. Haneef in
respect of Ac.0.19 gts in Sy.No.252/2 and Ac.1.18 gts in
Sy.No.253/2, the name of respondent No.6 i.e, Moinuddin in
respect of Ac.0.34 gts in Sy.no.253/3 and Ac.0.19 gts in
Sy.No.252/3 and the name of respondent No.7 i.e, Imamuddin in
respect of land Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.252/4 and Ac.1.19 gts in
Sy.No.253/4 situated at Abdullapurmet Village and Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and
consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondent Nos.2 and
3 not to entertain registration of any deeds executed by
respondent nos.4 to 7 in respect of above said lands..."
5. The petitioners in W.P. No. 8652 of 2009 and W.P. No. 3098 of
2024 are the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.27953 of 2022 and
W.P. No. 2923 of 2023, and vice versa. For the sake of convenience,
hereinafter the parties are referred as they are arrayed in
W.P.No.8652 of 2009.
6. Writ Petition No.8652 of 2009 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in this batch of cases.
7. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in-interest
Mohd. Ismail Saheb, was the inamdar for the lands admeasuring
Ac.14-30 gts in Sy.No.251, Ac.1-35 gts in Sy.No.252, Ac.5-35 gts in
Sy.No.253, total admeasuring Ac.22.30 gts (corresponding to old
Sy.Nos.26 and 27) situated at Abdullapurmet Village, Hayathnagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and after the death of original inamdar
Mohd. Ismail Saheb on 01.04.1985, they being his successors,
became the absolute owners of the said property. It is their case that
the respondents are not entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights
Certificates (ORCs) under the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955 (for short "Inams Act") and in fact relying upon
stray entry for the lands in Sy.No.253, a false claim was made by the
respondents for issuance of ORCs. It is further case of petitioners
that the original and appellate authorities failed to examine the
records properly and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be
set aside. Sri Harinder Pershad, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners referred the following decisions:
i) Syed Abdul Majeed and others vs. Joint Collector-II,
Ranga Reddy District and others 1,
ii) N. Padmamma and others vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and
others 2,
iii) Government of Andhra Pradesh through Principal
Secretary and others vs. PRatap Karan and others 3,
iv) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another vs.
D.Narsing Rao and others 4,
v) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs vs. Jagannath
(dead) by LRs and others 5.
8. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent Nos.3 to 7
that one Madugula Mallaiah, was the Protected Tenant of land
admeasuring Ac.10.02 gts in Sy.Nos.26 and 27 corresponding to new
Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 situated at Abdullapurmet Village, and
they are the successors-in-interest of the original tenant and as
such, they are entitled for issuance of ORCs.
9. Pending adjudication of the writ petition, a counter affidavit
has been filed by the impleaded respondent No.9, wherein it is stated
that it has purchased land in Sy.No.251 admeasuring Ac.14.00 gts
under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.5287/2000,
2006(5) ALD 348
(2015) 1 SCC 417
AIR 2016 SC 1717
AIR 2015 SC 1021
(1994) 1 SCC 1
5288/2000 dated 12.06.2000 and document Nos.4877/2001 and
4878/2001 dated 31.05.2001 and also land admeasuring Ac.7.32 ½
gts in Sy.No.250. It is further stated by the respondent No.9 that its
interest is limited only to Sy.No.251 in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.14.00 gts.
10. This Court has carefully examined the contentions of the
learned counsel for respective parties and also the nature of lands,
its classification and rights of the inter se parties to claim ORCs
under the provisions of Inams Act.
11. The records reveals that Madugula Narasimha, predecessor-in-
interest of the respondents (petitioners in W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022
and 2923 of 2023), claiming to be protected tenant in respect of land
to an extent of Ac.10-00 gts in Sy.Nos.26 and 27 corresponding to
new Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253, situated at Abdullapur Village,
Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed an application for
issuance of succession certificate under the provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950
(for short "Tenancy Act"). The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, has granted
succession certificate vide proceedings No.B/1250/1988 dated
21.06.1990 for the said lands. Questioning the said proceedings, the
petitioners in W.P.No.8652/2009 filed an appeal vide
No.B4/7532/1990 under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, on the file of
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (appellate authority)
contending that Mr.Madugula Narasimha, respondents' father has
surrendered the tenancy rights orally. Disbelieving the version of the
petitioners, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order
dated 20.08.1997, confirming the proceedings No.B/1250/1988
dated 21.06.1990 issued by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No.3546/1997 on the file
of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated
25.08.2000 with the following observations:
"From a perusal of the record of the appellate authority I find that the
counsel for the appellants has also submitted written arguments. Hence,
it is not correct to state that no opportunity was given. The order of the
Joint Collector is of speaking order giving cogent reasons for upholding
the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar. I do not see any
reason warranting interference under Section 91 of the AP (Telangana
Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Revision Petition is
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs."
12. The aforesaid order attained finality with the dismissal of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.016332/2000 filed by the petitioners,
vide order dated 16.10.2000.
13. It is further seen from the record that thereafter, the
respondents filed an application under Section 32 of the Tenancy
Act, in respect of subject lands forming part of old Sy.Nos.26 and 27
corresponding to new Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 for delivery of the
possession claiming to be Protected Tenants. The Tahsildar vide
Proceedings No.B/1611/2000 dated 07.02.2004 allowed the said
petition and ordered to restore the possession of lands to an extent of
Ac.10.00 gts in favour of respondents herein. Questioning the same,
the petitioners filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2213/2004 and the
respondents filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2219/2004 under Section
90 of the Tenancy Act on the file of the Joint Collector. The appellate
authority after verification of the records relating to nature and
classification of the lands in Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 and the report
of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, vide
Lr.No.A2/Spl./2006 dated 01.08.2006 declared the nature of the
lands as Inam lands and the same are vested in the State as per the
provisions of the Inams Act, which came into force w.e.f 26.07.1955.
It was further observed that in view of enactment of Inams Act, all
rights including that of Protected Tenancy in respect of Inam lands
stands extinguished and a Protected Tenant would be entitled for
ORCs in terms of Section 7 of Inams Act and accordingly, vide orders
dated 01.08.2006, the restoration orders dated 07.02.2004 of the
Tahsildar was set aside. In terms of the observations of the above
referred order, it is stated that the respondents filed a petition under
sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition
of Inams Rules, 1975 for grant of ORCs in respect of lands
admeasuring Ac.15-00 gts, Ac.1-35 gts and Ac.5-35 gts in Sy.Nos.26
and 27 (old) corresponding to new Sy.Nos.251, 252, and 253 situated
at Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
14. The Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act, 1952 (VIII of 1952)
was enacted to enfranchise certain classes of inams and to charge in
lieu of relinquishment of reversionary rights of Government and
conferment of all proprietary rights on the Inamdars. The
Government with a laudable object has thought it fit that while
compensating the inamdar, the rights of the tenants should also be
adequately safeguarded. Keeping in view of the said object, the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was
enacted abolishing the inams w.e.f. 20.02.1955. Although inams
were abolished and the lands vested with the Government by virtue
of Section 3(1), the rights and interests of landlords and tenants
mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) were preserved under Section 33, as
Sections 3(2)(d), (g), (h), and (i) did not come into force. The Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was repealed
by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,
1967 (Act IX of 1967). The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court
struck down the Act IX of 1967 as unconstitutional vide judgment
dated 31.03.1970. Thereafter, the State Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.947 Rev(G) dated 20.10.1973 and in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 1(3) of the Inams Act VIII of 1955, a
notification was published appointing 1st November, 1973 as the date
on which all the provisions of the Act except those mentioned in sub-
Section (3) (a) of Section 1, shall come into force in all the Districts in
Telangana Area of the State.
15. Section 2 of the Inams Act deals with 'Definitions' and sub-
section (1) says that in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context-
(a) xxx
(b) the expression 'date of vesting' when used -
(i) in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) with reference to clauses
(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 and in Section
34, means the date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette;
(ii) elsewhere in this Act means the date appointed by the
Government under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1;
(c) 'inam' means land held under a gift or grant made by the Nizam or
by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor
and continued or confirmed by virtue of muntakhab or other title
deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with the
remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and
entered as such in the village records and includes -
(i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and seri inam; and
(ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and
entered as inam in the village records;
Provided that in respect of former Jagir areas, the expression inam
shall not include such lands as have not been recognised as imams
by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs.
(d) 'inamdar' means a person holding an inam or a share therein,
either for his own benefit or in trust and includes the successor in
interest of an inamdar, and -
(i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound mind or an
idiot, his lawful guardian;
(ii) where an inamdar is a Joint Hindu family, such Joint
Hindu family.
(e) 'kabize'e'khadim' means the holder of inam land, other than an
inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the
grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for
not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays
the inamdar only the land revenue.
(g) non-protected tenant' means a tenant other than a permanent
tenant or a 'protected tenant'.
(h) 'permanent tenant' means a person who, from a date prior to 10th
June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease
from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement.
(j) protected tenant' means the protected tenant as defined in the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950).
16. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of Inams Act, all the inams stood
abolished except those that were saved expressly as provided under
the Inams Act. For the purpose of granting ORC, the following
persons envisaged under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 i.e., Inamdars,
Kabiz-e-Khadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants, and non-
protected tenants, were recognized as being eligible for grant of ORC
under the Act. Section 9 deals with vesting of lands, on which
buildings are there, in the persons who owned it immediately before
the date of abolition. Section 10 grants powers to the Collector to
examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the
persons envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 are eligible to be registered
as occupants.
17. A reading of the above provisions clearly sets out that the
persons who are envisaged under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act alone are
eligible for grant of ORC. The only condition precedent for grant of
ORC to the persons enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 is that they
should be in personal cultivation/possession of the said land as on
the date of vesting.
18. In Smt. Kannamma vs. District Collector, Rangareddy 6,
this Court placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
1990 (1) An.W.R.722
Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laxman Ambaji 7, has held the
date of vesting as 01.11.1973 for the purpose of granting ORC. The
said decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in
N.Sudershan Reddy vs. Smt. Kannamma (deceased by LRs) 8. The
said law was reaffirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in
B.Ramender Reddy v. District Collector 9, at Para 55, has held as
under:
"From the above, it follows that the relevant date for the purpose of
recognizing the occupancy rights under Section 4 to 8 of the Act is
1.11.1973. If, on that date, either the inamdar or the different
categories of tenants are in possession of the land, they would be
entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. On the facts of the present
case, the Collector found that neither the successors-in-interest of the
inamdar nor the so called purchasers from the original inamdar were in
possession of the inam lands, even as on 20.07.1955. Therefore, the
question of they being in possession of the inam property as on
011.1.1973 does not arise. Consequently, they are not entitled for
grant of occupancy rights under Section 4 of the Act."
19. This view has been consistently upheld by several other
judgments. A reading of the above decisions would reveal that the
date of vesting for the purpose of granting ORC is 01.11.1973 and
the said date of vesting holds good till date.
20. While the matter stood thus, the respondents' petition for
grant of ORCs in respect of subject lands was taken on record by the
Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga
Reddy East Division, at Hyderabad vide File No.J/1865/2006. The
AIR 1971 SC 1859
AIR 1994 AP 116
1993(2) An.W.R. 84*
notices as required in Form-II of Inam Rules, 1955 were issued to the
inamdars, petitioners and others interested in the subject matter.
The Tribunal after verifying the records and certified copies of the
pahanies for the years 1973-74, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 has
observed that the respondents are in possession of the lands in
Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts. It is further observed as per
the records that the land in Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts
alone found to be in possession and occupation of respondents
predecessors-in-interest (M. Ramaiah and M. Narsaiah) in the
pahanies for the years 1973-74, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 and
they have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditions for grant of ORCs in
terms of the notified date i.e, 01.11.1973. The Tribunal vide order
dated 02.03.2007 while allowing the claim of the respondents in
respect of land to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts in Sy.No.253, negated the
claim in respect of remaining extent. Aggrieved by the said orders,
the writ petitioners filed appeal vide Case No.F1/100/2008 and the
respondents filed appeal vide Case No.F1/3811/2008 and the
appellate authority vide impugned order dated 28.02.2009 disposed
of the said appeals by setting aside the rejection of claim for issuance
of ORCs with regard to lands in Sy.Nos.251 and 252, directed the
original authority to comply with the directions issued by the-then
Joint Collector vide order dated 01.08.2006 in File No.F2/2213/2004
and issue ORCs to the respondents.
21. It is stated that after obtaining ORCs, the respondent Nos.3 to
7 in W.P.No.8652 of 2009 executed sale deed vide document
No.5216/2007 dated 24.07.2007 in favour of respondent No.8.
Questioning the orders passed by the appellate authority confirming
the grant of ORCs in favour of respondents for the land in Sy.No.253
to an extent of Ac.5-35 gts, the petitioners filed Writ Petition
No.8652/2009 on the file of this Court. On 27.04.2009, this Court
granted interim orders directing both parties to maintain status quo
until further orders. Alleging that in violation of the said interim
orders passed by this Court, the petitioners fraudulently got mutated
their names in the revenue records and changed the nature of the
subject property by obtaining building permission, the respondents
filed W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023.
22. It is seen from the record that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8652
of 2009 and 3098 of 2024 are claiming ORCs in respect of subject
property as successors-in-interest of original inamdar i.e, Mohd.
Ismail Saheb. The petitioners/respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.2093
of 2023 filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.2093 of 2023 denying the
right of petitioners in W.P.No.2093 of 2023 for grant of ownership
certificate under provisions of Tenancy Act and recording of their
names as Protected Tenants/Tenants on the crucial date i.e,
01.11.1973. They have not disputed the issuance of impugned
proceedings by the Joint Collector or the consequential mutation of
their names in revenue records.
23. The respondents claiming that their ancestors are protected
tenants and entitled to be registered as occupants filed an
application for succession under the provisions of Tenancy Act. The
Tahsildar issued Proceedings No.B/1250/1988 dated 21.06.1990
recognizing the respondents as successors-in-interest of the original
Protected Tenant. Questioning the same, the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.8652/2009 and 3098/2024 filed appeal on the file of Joint
Collector, under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act vide appeal
No.B4/7532/1990 and the same was dismissed on 20.08.1997.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CRP No.3546/1977 on
the file of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated
25.08.2000 on the observation that the Joint Collector in his
speaking order has given cogent reasons for upholding the order of
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar. Challenging the same,
the petitioners filed S.L.P (C) No.016332/2000 on the file of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide orders
dated 16.10.2000. The above facts would clearly establish that the
orders passed by the Tahsildar granting succession in respect of
subject lands in favour of the respondents (petitioners in
W.P.Nos.27953/2022 and 2923/2023) in Case No.B/1250/1988 has
attained finality. The respondents herein filed an application on the
file of the Tahsildar, seeking to restore possession of the subject
lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and the same was allowed
by the Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.B/1611/2000 dated
07.02.2004 directing to restore the possession of lands to an extent
of Ac.10.00 gts in favour of respondents herein. Questioning the
same, the petitioners filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2213/2004 and
the respondents filed appeal vide Case No.F2/2219/2004 under
Section 90 of the Tenancy Act on the file of the Joint Collector
(appellate authority). The appellate authority vide orders dated
01.08.2006, by relying on the report of Assistant Director, Survey
and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.A2/Spl/2008
dated 01.08.2006, allowed the appeal stating that the provisions of
the Tenancy Act are not applicable to the subject lands and claims of
occupancy rights has to be determined as per the provisions of the
Inams Act.
24. It is stated that in terms of aforesaid order, the respondents
herein filed application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Inam Rules,
1955 for grant of ORCs in respect of subject lands. The competent
authority after verification of the records and taking into
consideration that as on the date of enforcement of provisions of the
Inams Act i.e, 01.11.1973, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and their
predecessors-in-interest are in possession of Ac.5-35 gts in
Sy.No.253 and accordingly, granted ORC in favour of respondents
herein vide order dated 02.03.2007 in File No.J/1865/2006 and
thereafter, the respondents have disposed the property in favour of
respondent No.8 vide registered sale deed dated 20.04.2007. As per
the provisions of the Inams Act, the protected tenants and non-
protected tenants are entitled for grant of ORC, from the date of
vesting of the land under Section 37 of Tenancy Act. The facts would
further establish that the tenancy rights of the respondents granted
under Section 40 over the subject lands have attained finality on the
dismissal of SLP (C) No.016332/2000. As per the records, the
petitioners have pleaded about the surrender of oral tenancy under
the provisions of the Tenancy Act, which was not accepted by the
original and appellate authorities while passing an order in File
No.B4/7532/1990 dated 20.08.1997. Contrary to the same, the
petitioners are pleading that the respondents are not in possession of
the subject lands as on the crucial date i.e, 01.11.1973. The said
plea of the petitioners amounts to approbate and reprobate to suit
their claim.
25. The doctrine of election and underlying doctrine of approbate
and reprobate is a rule of equity. Where a person knowingly accrues
the benefits of an instrument, he is estopped from denying the
validity or the binding effect of such instrument. Admittedly, in the
present case, the respondents as protected tenants recognized by
dismissal of revision, as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act, as
such they are deemed to be in possession. In addition, as per the
orders of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, in File
No.J/1865/2006 dated 02.03.2007 the predecessors-in-interest of
the respondents i.e, M.Ramaiah and M.Narsaiah, were in actual
possession as on 01.11.1973. Therefore the contention of the writ
petitioners that the respondents are not in possession as on the
crucial date i.e, 01.11.1973 is not borne from the record and the
decisions relied upon by them are distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances of the cases on hand. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.8652 of
2009 and 3098 of 2024 deserve to be dismissed.
26. W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023 are filed by the
petitioners (unofficial respondents in W.P.Nos.8652 of 2009 and
3098 of 2024) questioning the building permissions issued vide
Proceedings No.168/BP/2022 dated 01.04.2022 in respect of land
admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy.No.251 and also in respect of Plot
No.131 admeasuring 220 Sq.yards, during the operation of status
quo orders dated 27.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.
11338 of 2009 in W.P.No.8652 of 2009 and pending adjudication of
validity or otherwise of the orders dated 28.02.2009 passed by the
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide File No.F1/3811/2008
and the mutation of entries in revenue records in favour of the writ
petitioners in W.P.Nos.8652 of 2009 and 3098 of 2024.
27. It is settled law that when a Court issues a status quo order, it
mandates that existing state of affairs be maintained until further
directions are issued. Actions taken in violation of such orders are
considered illegal and without legal effect. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that any act done in contravention of a
status quo order is null and void.
28. In Satyabrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku 10, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any act done in violation of the
order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of
sublease are clearly illegal. In the instant case, this Court vide orders
dated 27.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.11338 of 2009 in W.P.No.8652 of
2009 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the
lands in Sy.Nos.251, 252 and 253 situated at Abdullapurmet Village,
until further orders. It appears from the record that in violation of
the status quo orders dated 27.04.2009 passed by this Court, the
official respondents have granted building permissions vide
Proceedings No.168/BP/2022 dated 01.04.2022 in respect of lands
admeasuring Ac.2-12 Gts in Sy.No.251 and Plot No.131 admeasuring
(1994) 2 SCC 266
220 Sq.yards, to defeat the claim of Writ Petitioners in
W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2093 of 2023.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated
28.02.2009 passed in Case Nos.F1/100/2008 and F1/3811/2008 by
the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The claim of the respondent No.9 in
W.P.No.8652/2009 is that it has purchased lands in Sy.Nos.251 and
252 and its interest is limited to an extent of land in Sy.No.251. If
that is so, if any enquiry is initiated in pursuance of the impugned
order dated 28.02.2009 passed in Case Nos.F1/100/2008 and
F1/3811/2008, it is left open to the respondent No.9 to agitate its
grievances for the said lands, in accordance with law.
30. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.8652 of 2009 and 3098 of 2024 are
dismissed. Consequently, W.P.Nos.27953 of 2022 and 2923 of 2023
are allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these
writ petitions, shall stand closed.
}
__________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 07.02.2025
SCS
