JUDGMENT :- The two petitioners herein seek a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with their possession of land admeasuring Ac.18.00 situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the basis of a Panchanama prepared by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 20.08.2007 as illegal and without jurisdiction and also for declaring the Panchanama prepared by the fifth respondent on 20.08.2007 together with the sketch enclosed thereto as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and his brother Sri P. Seetharam Reddy were originally the owners of land admeasuring Ac.82.68 cents in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In accordance with and in terms of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, Sri P. Seetharam Reddy and his son Sri R. Venkata Narsimha Reddy filed a declaration in CC.No.178/M/75 and CC.No.141/M/75 respectively in respect of land of an extent of Ac.41.34 cents out of Ac.82.68 cents held by their family, representing one half, situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Though, the declaration also included, some other extents of land, we are not concerned with those lands in the present case. The third respondent, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy East Division passed an order on 28.10.1976 setting out Sri P. Seetha Ram Reddy and his son Sri R. Venkata Narsimha Reddy as non-surplus land holders and hence the land in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village to the extent of Ac.41.34 cents falling to the branch of Sri P. Seetha Ram Reddy stands unaffected by the provision contained in A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. 3. The other branch of Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and his son Sri P. Anji Reddy filed declarations in CC.No.140/M/75 and CC.No.179/M/75 in respect of the other half of land held and owned by them in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village. On 30.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and his son Sri P. Anji Reddy were holding surplus land beyond the permissible ceiling limit imposed by the first Land Reforms Act, 1973. On 30.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and his son Sri P. Anji Reddy were holding surplus land beyond the permissible ceiling limit imposed by the first Land Reforms Act, 1973. As a consequence of this declaration, Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and his son Sri P. Anji Reddy surrendered land admeasuring AC.38.26 cents out of Ac.41.34 cents held by them in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village and a certificate in Form-X dated 11.01.1977 was issued evidencing the said surrender. 4. On 01.06.1989, Sri P. Venkat Narsimha Reddy, son of Sri P. Seetha Ram Reddy executed and registered general power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner herein namely Sri R. Bhaskara Raju, authorizing him to sell away or deal with the land admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents, out of the land that fell for his share in the manner considered appropriate by the first petitioner. Sri P. Venkata Narsimha Reddy has also agreed to sell land of an extent of Ac.10.00 in the same survey number to the first petitioner and after receiving the entire sale consideration amount, executed a registered general power of attorney bearing document No.1538/89 in respect of the Ac.10.00 of land, authorizing Sri N. Purnachander Rao and another to execute and register regular sale deed either in favour of the first petitioner herein or any of his nominees. On 11.12.1989, through a registered sale deed bearing document No.9200/89, Sri P. Venkata Narsimha Reddy sold another extent of Ac.4.00 situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village. On 06.02.1990, the first petitioner and the general power of attorney holders of Sri P. Venkata Narsimha Reddy sold land of an extent of Ac.4.00 in favour of the second petitioner herein. By another sale deed bearing document No.15388/89, sold another extent of Ac.5.00 to the second petitioner. The balance Ac.5.00 acres of land was sold to the first petitioner on 03.07.1990. Thus, both the petitioners herein have been in possession of the land of an extent of Ac.18.00 in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village in their own right. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, through his proceedings dated 21.05.1993 granted lease hold rights for quarrying building stone and road metal in an extent of Ac.4.00 situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, through his proceedings dated 21.05.1993 granted lease hold rights for quarrying building stone and road metal in an extent of Ac.4.00 situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village. The second petitioner has leased out his land of Ac.9.00 situate in the same survey number for running the stone crushing unit by the first petitioner herein. After obtaining electric energy connection on commercial basis, the first petitioner was running stone crushing unit in the name of Mechanised Aggregate Industries. The first petitioner has also obtained a domestic service connection for the office rooms and the watchman quarters run in the said land. 5. The total extent of land available in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village is Ac.441.13 guntas. Out of this total extent, Ac 318.27 guntas of land has been taken possession of by the first respondent/Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, as it was surplus land, in accordance with various declarations filed under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The balance land is private patta land. The State Government, the first respondent herein leased out a total extent of Ac.238.28 guntas of land to the sixth respondent, i.e, the State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad, through their G.O.Ms.No.1100 Revenue (ASN.V) Department dated 16.08.2007. In the meantime, certain extent of land which was surrendered to the third respondent, was encroached upon by the third parties who laid it out and developed the same as house site plots. Leaving that encroached upon land untouched and unaffected, the fifth respondent has prepared a suitable sketch and also a Panchanama on 20.08.2007 and handed over possession of the land of Ac.238.28 guntas allotted by the State Government to the sixth respondent. In the process, the fifth respondent has unauthorizedly included in that sketch the retainable non-surplus land, in possession of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition is instituted. 6. The fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, filed a detailed counter in the matter. One Sri K. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Venu Gopala Naidu, Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal swore to the said affidavit. It is stated therein that, land of an extent of Ac. Hence, this writ petition is instituted. 6. The fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, filed a detailed counter in the matter. One Sri K. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Venu Gopala Naidu, Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal swore to the said affidavit. It is stated therein that, land of an extent of Ac. 441.13 guntas in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal was classified in Revenue record as “Dasthagardan” in the name of Smt. Lala Begum and others and that the said land was purchased by Sri Pagidi Venkata Narsimha Reddy S/o Seetharam Reddy, Pagidi Ramchandra Reddy and D. Laxmi Narayan Reddy. It is stated that, after the advent of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the above named persons have filed declarations individually, showing inter alia the land in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village and after due computation by the Land Reforms Tribunal, a total extent of Ac.122.70 cents was declared as retainable land while, Ac.318.27 cents was declared as surplus land. The declarants have surrendered land of Ac.318.27 guntas. It is also further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division issued Occupancy Right Certificates (ORC) over an extent of Ac.123.28 guntas in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village. It is also stated that, as per the village record for the year 1999-2000, land bearing Sy.No.307/1 admeasuring Ac.317.25 guntas situate in Gajularamaram Village was classified as “Kharij Khata” (Government Land) i.e. ceiling surplus land. It is further averred that, over an extent of Ac.79.00 of land situate in Sy No. 307 of Gajularamaram Village, crushers are established and an extent of Ac.7.00 of land was allotted to the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Qutbullapur Circle. Thus leaving aside these Ac.99.00, over the available balance extent of land of Ac.218.28 guntas, alienation proposals were submitted in favour of the sixth respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and accordingly, the State Government passed orders through G.O.Ms.No.1100 Revenue (ASN.V) Department dated 16.08.2007 allotting Ac.238.28 guntas situate in Sy.No.307/1 and land of an extent of Ac.33.11 gunts situate in Sy.No.303 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation on lease basis for a period of 99 years at Rs.40.00 lakhs per acre. It was further averred that, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued orders on 20.08.2007 to hand over these extents of land to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and accordingly, the possession over these lands has been handed over to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation under the cover of a Panchanama. It is specifically asserted in paragraphs 9 of the said counter affidavit that the original declarants have sold away the retainable patta land of an extent of Ac.122.72 cents in Sy.No.307 to different individuals and the names of the purchasers were already mutated in the Pahani and this land was already covered by different lay-outs and hence there is no land available to the extent of Ac.18.00, in the retainable extent of land in Sy.No.307, as claimed by the petitioners. It is also specifically averred that, upon verification from the sketch enclosed by the petitioners, it is not tallying or matching with the boundaries of the land purchased through registered sale document No.9200/89 dated 11.12.1989. Thereafter, it is asserted as under: “Hence, by misleading the physical aspect of the subject property, the petitioners in the guise of the retainable part of the land are trying to grab the valuable Government land allotted to APSFC towards public purpose.” 7. Thereafter, an additional counter affidavit sworn to by Sri K Venkateswarlu, S/o Sri Venu Gopal Naidu, Deputy Collector-cum-Tahsildar, Qutbullapur, was filed sometime during October, 2011. It is stated in paragraph 3 thereof that the High Court has dismissed W.P.No.1583 of 2008 on 25.03.2011, filed by Sri Zaheda Begum, W/o Shaik Imam and two others against the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal as well as Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, claiming ownership over an extent of Ac.11.00 of land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 18.10.2011, and after verifying the material papers available on record, Sri K. Venkateswarlu, S/o Venu Gopala Naidu, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal filed a further additional counter affidavit in the matter. 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 18.10.2011, and after verifying the material papers available on record, Sri K. Venkateswarlu, S/o Venu Gopala Naidu, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal filed a further additional counter affidavit in the matter. It is stated in paragraph 2 thereof that, Sri P.Venkat Narsimha Reddy and Sri Anji Reddy, the declarants in CC.No.140/M/75 and CC.No.179/M/75, who are declared as surplus land holders, have surrendered land of an extent of Ac.38.26 cents in Sy.NO.307 of Gajularamaram Village and the possession thereof has been taken by the government under cover of a panchanama in Form-X on 11.01.1977 and for the land of an extent of Ac.38.26 cents, a location sketch has also been prepared. 9. In paragraph 3 of this additional counter affidavit, it is averred that, Sri P. Ram Chandra Reddy, the declarant in CC.No.380/M/75, who was declared as a surplus land holder has surrendered land of an extent of Ac.137.13 cents in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village and the government has taken possession of the same under the cover of a panchanama in Form-X on 12.02.1977 and a location sketch has also been prepared for the said land. 10. In paragraph 4 of the said additional counter affidavit, it is averred that Sri D. Lakshmi Narsimha Reddy, the declarant in CC.No.595/M/75 was declared surplus land holder of an extent of Ac.142.21 cents, the possession of which surplus land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village was taken over by the Government under the cover of a panchanama in Form-X on 23.02.1979. It is also further averred that, the Taluk Surveyor has prepared a sketch on 14.07.1981 for the total ceiling surplus land and of retainable land in Sy.No.307, Gajularamaram Village. Thus, a total extent of Ac.317.60 cents out of a total of Ac.441.32 cents in Sy.No.307, Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, was declared as agricultural ceiling surplus land, possession of which was taken over by the Government on three different occasions, namely on 11.01.1977, 12.02.1977 and 23.02.1979 from the respective surplus land holders. What was thereafter available was only Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land in the said survey number. The contents of paragraph 6,7 and 8 of this additional counter affidavit sworn to on 19.01.2012 read as under: “6. What was thereafter available was only Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land in the said survey number. The contents of paragraph 6,7 and 8 of this additional counter affidavit sworn to on 19.01.2012 read as under: “6. It is submitted that on verification of ground position, it is noticed that the declarants have sold the retainable land to the third parties and the purchasers are in possession of some retainable land and a large extent of ceiling surplus land by way of lay-outs and structures which was surrendered by the declarants. It is further submitted that at the time of handing over the land to APSFC, part of the retainable land was shown to A.P.S.F.C as their (there) was no specific demarcation between Government land and retainable land. 7. It is submitted that since the purchasers of retainable land have occupied the ceiling surplus land instead of retainable land eviction notices have been prepared and served on [163] persons to the extent of Ac.139-30 gts. Further necessary action will be taken for resumption of ceiling surplus land after due process of law. 8. It is submitted that the land claimed by the petitioners is falling in the retainable land as per field verification and the location sketch prepared. In view of the above, action will be taken to hand over ceiling surplus land to A.P.S.F.C as per the record available in the Ceiling surplus files.” (Emphasis is generated by me) 11. On 11.06.2012, a comprehensive counter affidavit sworn to by Sri K. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Sri Venu Gopala Naidu, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, has been filed in the case. It is stated that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 18.10.2011, directing the respondents to make available the complete details as to the surrendered land, its boundaries, the retainable land and its boundaries, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, has verified the ceiling files and undertook field inspection and it was noticed by him that, certain third parties are in possession of ceiling surplus lands by way of lay-outs and they raised structures and notices were issued to them for their unauthorized occupation of ceiling surplus lands. Pursuant to the notices thus served on the third parties, they have filed replies along with copies of documents and Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. Pursuant to the notices thus served on the third parties, they have filed replies along with copies of documents and Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. It is now asserted in paragraph 4 of this comprehensive counter affidavit that the nature of the land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village is noted in Sethwar as Maqtha Inam (Dasthgardan) and it was also noted in the village records as Maqtha and after taking possession of the surplus ceiling land, entry was made reflecting the land as “Kharij Khata” (Government Land). In view of the submission of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC’s) by third parties, the Inam files of the RDO’s office and the ceiling files pertaining to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, East Division have both been verified and it is realized that the averments contained in the original counter affidavit and those made in the additional counter affidavits are not setting out clear information and hence it was decided to file a comprehensive counter affidavit to resolve the litigation once and for all. 12. In paragraph 6 of this comprehensive counter affidavit, it is stated that, a total extent of Ac.488.05 guntas of land situate in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal was classified as Maqtha Inam (Dasthgarden) in the name of Smt Durgava Begum Saheba, as per the Sethwar of Gajularamaram Village. After introduction of the Inams Abolition Act in the year 1955, all Inams were abolished and those lands vested with the government as on 20.07.1955. It is submitted that, as per sesala pahani (1955-58), land of an extent of Ac.488.05 guntas in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village was recorded in the name of Darugahi Begum and possession column was kept blank. Whereas, in the Pahani for the year 1973-74, land of an extent of Ac.441.13 guntas was recorded in the names of Smt. Lala Begum and Jahangir Begum, Narsimha Reddy and Smt. Radhamma in pattedar column and the names of Ramchandra Reddy and others, Narsimha Reddy and Smt. Radhamma were recorded in possession column. It is submitted that, after a thorough search, the pahani of Gajularamaram Village for the year 1973-74 is not readily traceable in the Mandal office. However, the certified copy of the extract of the Pahani for the year 1973-74 was available in the ORC files of the RDO’s office. It is submitted that, after a thorough search, the pahani of Gajularamaram Village for the year 1973-74 is not readily traceable in the Mandal office. However, the certified copy of the extract of the Pahani for the year 1973-74 was available in the ORC files of the RDO’s office. It is stated in paragraph 7 of this counter affidavit that, as seen from the records, Smt. Jahangir Begum, W/o Mir Himayath Ali (daughter of Mir Gulzar Ali and Smt. Lala Begum, W/o Md. Hussain (Sister of Dargahi Begum W/o Mir Gulzar Ali) have sold an extent of Ac.172.23 guntas out of Ac.460.09 guntas situate in Sy.Nos.306, 307, 335 to 339 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal to Smt. D. Radhamma W/o Lakshmi Narayana Reddy through registered document No.3856/1965 dated 03.12.1965. Similarly, an extent of Ac.86.13 guntas has been sold to Narsimha Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy through registered document No.3859/1965 dated 01.12.1965. Further, an extent of 2 Annas share out of Ac.481.16 guntas (which comes to Ac.60.07 guntas) was sold to Pagidi Seetaram Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy through registered sale deed No.422/1967 dated 07.02.1967. It was further asserted that, the aforementioned purchasers namely Sri Pagidi Seetharam Reddy, Pagidi Venkata Narasimha Reddy, S/o Pagidi Seetha Ram Reddy, Pagidi Ram Chandra Reddy and Sri D. Lakshmi Narayan Reddy have filed separate declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 showing an extent of Ac.441.32 cents in Sy.No.307, claiming the said land to have been purchased by them from the Maqthedars. Thereafter, it is stated as under: 13. “It is submitted that, as the land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village was originally Maqtha land, the then Land Reforms Tribunal ought to have dealt with the matter under the Inams Abolition Act, 1955, prior to proceeding with Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973. After finalization of Inams issue only, the Land Reforms Tribunal should have taken up the case under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973.” (Emphasis is mine) It is averred in paragraph 9 that, after the Land Reforms Tribunal has declared the surplus land held by declarants, the purchasers have surrendered a total extent of land of Ac.318.27 guntas to the government while retaining an extent of Ac.122.70 cents. It is stated that the declarants have surrendered the surplus land and the possession was taken over under the cover of the Panchanama. It is stated that the declarants have surrendered the surplus land and the possession was taken over under the cover of the Panchanama. In paragraph 11, it is asserted that, Sri Narsimha Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, Sri Anji Reddy S/o Narsimha Reddy, Mohan Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Seetha Ram Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, Smt D. Radhamma W/o Lakshmi Narsimha Reddy have sold an extent of Ac.138.00 through simple sale agreements on sada paper in favour of different individuals on 30.12.1970. The purchasers of the land on simple sale agreements have filed applications for issue of ORC’s under A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division granted ORC’s in their favour for an extent of Ac.138.00 in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. It is submitted that, after obtaining the ORC’s, those persons have sold the land to different persons and that the subsequent purchasers occupied the land which was surrendered by the original declarants, instead of occupying the retainable land. In paragraph 12 it is further averred as under: “It is further submitted that the declarants knows very well that they have only Ac.122.72 cents available as retained land and they have sold Ac.138 which was in excess of their holding.” In paragraph 13, it was narrated as to how the government passed orders through G.O.Ms.No.1100 Revenue (ASN.V) Department dated 16.08.2007 and as to how pursuant to the directions issued by the District Collector on 20.08.2007, possession of those land has been handed over to the APSFC under the cover of a Panchanama on 20.08.2007. In paragraph 14 of this comprehensive counter affidavit, it is asserted that, the original declarants have already sold Ac.15.00 of land in excess of their retainable land and they are left with no balance land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. In paragraph 14 of this comprehensive counter affidavit, it is asserted that, the original declarants have already sold Ac.15.00 of land in excess of their retainable land and they are left with no balance land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. Since the petitioners are claiming to have purchased land of an extent of Ac.18.00, through GPA document No.191/81/89 dated 01.06.1989 (for Ac.4.00) and 1538/89 dated 30.11.1989 (for Ac.10.00) from Sri P. Venkata Narasimha Reddy during the year 1989 and purchased Ac.4.00 through a registered document No.9200/89 dated 11.12.1989, it is clear that there is no land left over with Sri P. Venkata Narasimha Reddy and others and hence the GPA as well as the sale deeds executed by Sri P. Venkata Narasimha Reddy in favour of the petitioners has no validity as he has no title over the said land and consequently the writ petitioners cannot make any valid claim over the land claimed by them. 14. The sixth respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. 15. The Chief General Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation swore to the detailed counter affidavit in the matter. A preliminary objection is raised by him that, in view of serious dispute on facts about the title and possession of the petitioners in respect of the land claimed to have been purchased by them, such disputes cannot be resolved satisfactorily in a writ petition without collecting necessary evidence and therefore the petitioners ought to have approached the Civil Court to establish and prove their title and possession and then alone can secure an injunctive relief against the State Government. It is stated that the land of an extent of Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.No.308 of Gajularamaram Village and a land of an extent of Ac.238.28 guntas in Sy.No.307/1 of the same village was allotted by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No.1100 Revenue (ASN.V) Department dated 16.08.2007 on a long term lease basis for a period of 99 years to the sixth respondent and the value of the land was considered as Rs.40.00 lakhs per acre and the same were to be treated as government equity contribution and the sixth respondent was required to allot appropriate shares to the Government, covering the value of the land. It is stated that this land is meant to be utilized to raise its capital base by the sixth respondent through multiple land use pattern in accordance with the zonal regulations. It is also asserted that, possession of this land was handed over under the cover of a panchanama on 20.08.2007 and the sixth respondent with a view to protect its land, started fencing the said property to protect it from encroachers and land grabbers. It was further asserted that, some portion of this fencing was got damaged due to quarrying operations carried out by the encroachers. The petitioners, according to the sixth respondent are seeking to grab this land which is allotted by the sixth respondent for achieving a public purpose. It is also asserted that, the petitioners have no right of any manner to challenge the panchanama and the sketch prepared by the Deputy Collector. It is also pointed out that, though other individuals namely Smt. Zaheeda Eshaan Ameen and Mr. Syed Zalal filed W.P.No.1583 of 2008 raising similar pleas as were raised in the present case and in that writ petition, initially a status quo order was granted, which was subsequently vacated on 25.04.2008. While passing the order, the learned single Judge of this Court observed that the seriously disputed questions of fact raised in the writ petition require oral and documentary evidence for satisfactory adjudication and hence the writ petition is not the most appropriate of the remedies. It is also stated that, subsequently the petitioners in W.P.No.1583 of 2008 have withdrawn the writ petition and accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed on 25.03.2011. It was also pointed out that, another W.P.No.4672 of 2008 was filed by the Gajularamaram Welfare Association raising pleas similar to that of the present case and the initial order of Status quo granted therein was also subsequently vacated upon contest by the sixth respondent on 23.06.2011. 16. The Chief General Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation has also filed an additional counter affidavit. 16. The Chief General Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation has also filed an additional counter affidavit. It is pointed out in paragraph 3 thereof that, the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal has departed from the earlier stand taken by him in the counter affidavit filed initially and subsequently in the additional counter affidavit filed on 19.01.2012, the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal supported the case of the petitioners, but subsequently, a paper book containing various documents running into 973 pages was filed by the Tahsildar suggesting that land of an extent of Ac.210.00 in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village is an Inam land which several persons had claimed tenancy rights in terms of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of the Inams Act, 1955, and orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (East Division) in his proceedings dated 17.03.1991 and proceedings dated 17.05.1991 in favour of Sri Venkat Reddy and various others granting them occupancy certificates. It is contended, but however, no pleadings were raised by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur in support of these additional documents. In view of the of the apparent contradictions, the contents of the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit, no explanation is offered as to the reasons for changing the stand taken in the original counter affidavit. In view of the material contained in the additional paper book indicating Ac.210.00 of land in Sy.No.307 as Inam land in respect of which Occupancy Right Certificates were also granted, no sketch is filed to show which part of Sy.No.307 is Inam land and which part is not Inam land and hence a doubt arises as to whether the petitioners land is in such Inam land portion or it is in surplus land or it is in the retainable land in Sy.No.307. It is also further pleaded that, the land said to have been purchased by the petitioners does not appear to be a contiguous one whereas, the sketch filed at page 29 of the paper book filed by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur along with the additional counter affidavit, the land purchased by the petitioners is shown to be contiguous. This discrepancy has not been explained by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur. This discrepancy has not been explained by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur. It is stated that an empowered committee of the State Government headed by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and consisting of other high ranking officials of the State Government recommended to lease Ac.238.38 cents situate in Sy.No.307/1 to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, out of which Ac.218.28 cents is said to be ceiling surplus land. The State Government has also alienated an extent of Ac.37.11 guntas situate in Sy.No.308 of the same village. It was stated that, the Mandal Surveyor has prepared a sketch showing entire land of an extent of Ac.441.13 cents situate in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, clearly demarcating the land leased out to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation from the rest of the land and the said sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor and a copy of the sketch was delivered to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation along with the panchanama regarding the delivery of the possession of the said land. This sketch and the present sketch filed by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal are at variance with regard to ceiling surplus land and the retainable land. This discrepancy has also been not explained by the Tahsildar. It is therefore asserted by the sixth respondent that the divergent stands taken by the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur indicate that the Tahsildar is blowing hot and cold simultaneously and taking shifting stands compromising the position of the State Government and hence the matter needs to be probed deeply so that the property belonging to the State is properly protected and public interest is not defeated. 17. A detailed reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners clarifying that the petitioners are not interested in challenging the validity of grant of lease or alienation of land made by the State Government in favour of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation at all. What the petitioners are concerned is an attempt made by the revenue establishment of the State Government in seeking to include the land held by the petitioners in their possession as per their title, as part of the land leased out to the sixth respondent. Therefore, the cause espoused in W.P.No.1583 of 2008 and W.P.No.4672 of 2008 is distinct and different from the present one. Therefore, the cause espoused in W.P.No.1583 of 2008 and W.P.No.4672 of 2008 is distinct and different from the present one. The petitioners are only aggrieved by the attempt of unauthorized dispossession made by the revenue establishment of the State Government of their land. It is further asserted by the petitioners that, the facts which are relevant for deciding this dispute are not in controversy. Only question requires to be determined is whether the land of the petitioners is situated within the retainable extent of land within a ceiling surplus land surrendered by the original declarants. With regard to the allegation made by the sixth respondent, that the land of extent of Ac.18.00 acres held by the petitioners is not lying in a compact block, it is stated that, if the sale deeds of the petitioners and their schedules are carefully perused, it becomes clear that the land of the petitioners of an extent of Ac.4.00 is lying to the south of one Sri Netrananda Reddy and land of an extent of Ac.10.00 was lying to the further south of the above said Ac.4.00 of land and the remaining Ac.4.00 of land is lying still further to the south of Ac.10.00 of land referred to supra, thus, the entire Ac.18.00 of land is lying in a compact block. It is stated that, two huge crushing units with industrial power connections and a separate electric transformer are in existence in this land of Ac.18.00, which is in their possession. The crushing units, crushed boulders and stone powder which is lying in heaps and also several eucalyptus trees are spread over in the entire Ac.18.00 of land which is in their possession. 18. Dealing with the Occupancy Right Certificates produced in a huge paper book comprising of 973 pages, it is submitted by the petitioners that they are the product of fraud to grab the ceiling surplus land which vested in the State Government in terms of Section 11 of the A.P. Land Reforms Act free from all encumbrances. It is asserted that, from the entries contained in the revenue records maintained in the year 1966-67, Lala Begum and Jahangir Begum were recorded as Khatedars/pattedars and owners of the land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. They sold the entire land under registered sale deed bearing document No.422/1967 dated 13.10.1967 to one Sri P. Seetharam Reddy. It is asserted that, from the entries contained in the revenue records maintained in the year 1966-67, Lala Begum and Jahangir Begum were recorded as Khatedars/pattedars and owners of the land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village. They sold the entire land under registered sale deed bearing document No.422/1967 dated 13.10.1967 to one Sri P. Seetharam Reddy. The recitals of the said document clearly disclosed that the vendors namely Lala Begum and Jahangir Begum are the absolute owners and possessors of the land and hence land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village was never an Inam land. Further, even before the Land Reforms Tribunal, during the enquiry, the land was never claimed to be Inam Land by the Government. After verification of the revenue records only, the declaration proceedings have been finalized and final orders were passed declaring as to how much of land is surplus land and how much of land therein can be retained. When the declarants surrendered the ceiling surplus land, necessary panchanama report is prepared. A consolidated sketch clearly demarcating the surplus land which was surrendered and vested in the government free from all encumbrances and the retainable land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village was also prepared and these records have in fact been filed by the Tahsildar along with his additional counter affidavit. Most significantly, the petitioners have pointed out that, when once land is vested in government in terms and in accordance with Section 11 of the Land Reforms Act free from all encumbrances, question of any person laying a claim in respect of such a land simply would not arise. A perusal of the material papers filed by the Tahsildar clearly makes out that the occupancy rights certificates were brought into existence in the year 1993 in favour of various individuals who claimed that they purchased various extents of land from the original declarants based on an agreement of sale dated 30.12.1970 on a sada white paper. It is most significant to note that, all the hundreds of occupancy rights certificate holders claimed to have entered into individual agreements of sale on 30.12.1970 on a sada white paper. No schedule of the property agreed to be purchased or sold has been specified in any of those agreements. Further, importantly, the revenue records do not disclose the names of these alleged agreement holders as occupants on the relevant date for granting them the occupancy rights certificate. No schedule of the property agreed to be purchased or sold has been specified in any of those agreements. Further, importantly, the revenue records do not disclose the names of these alleged agreement holders as occupants on the relevant date for granting them the occupancy rights certificate. The subsequent purchasers of the land have merely claimed their title to the land based on the occupancy rights certificates granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. No occupancy rights certificate could have been validly granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer over a land which was surrendered being surplus land by virtue of a statutory provision under the Land Reforms Act. Hence the Revenue Divisional Officer does not have any authority or jurisdiction to grant occupancy right certificate over the land that stood vested in the Government. 19. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M.S. Ramchander Rao, prior to his elevation, on behalf of the sixth respondent and Sri Y.N. Lohitha, learned counsel who appeared subsequently on behalf of the sixth respondent. 20. The whole question which needs to be addressed in this writ petition relates to the sanctity of the surrender proceedings undertaken under the A.P. Land Reforms Act. 21. The State Legislature, with a view to give effect to the principle of distributing agricultural lands to sub-serve the common good of the community, enacted Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, Act 1 of 1973, henceforth referred to as ‘Land Ceiling Act’ for brevity. In terms of Subsection 3 of Section 1 of this Act, it was brought into force with effect from 01.01.1975. Section 2 of the Act declared that this Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of our Constitution. Section 4 of this Act prescribed the ceiling area, while Section 5 prescribed the standard holding for different classes of lands. Section 6 empowered the State Government to constitute as many Tribunals as may be necessary for purpose of the said Act. Section 4 of this Act prescribed the ceiling area, while Section 5 prescribed the standard holding for different classes of lands. Section 6 empowered the State Government to constitute as many Tribunals as may be necessary for purpose of the said Act. Section 8 of this Act required every person, whose holding on the notified date exceeds the specified limits to furnish the declaration, within thirty days from the notified date or within such extended period as the Government may notify, in respect of his holding to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the whole or a major part of his holding is situate in such form as may be prescribed. Section 9 required the Tribunal constituted under Section 6 there upon to publish the declaration furnished or information obtained under Section 8 and make an enquiry and pass orders determining whether the person holds or is deemed to hold on the notified date the extent of land in excess of the ceiling area held by him. Section 11 required every person who is holding land in excess of the ceiling area liable to surrender the land held by him in excess. Section 11 required the Revenue Divisional Officer or any other officer authorized by him to take possession of such land which is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered and thereupon the land shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances from the date of such surrender. Section 13 is a special provision for protected tenants. Sub-section 1 thereof made it clear that, where the holding of any owner includes any land held by a protected tenant, the Tribunal shall, in the first instance, determine whether such land or part thereof stands transferred to the protected tenants under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, and if so, the extent of land so transferred, shall thereupon be excluded from the holding of such owner and included in the holding of such tenant as if the tenant was the owner of such land for purposes of this Act. Section 14 dealt with the manner in which the land vested in the Government under the said Act shall be disposed of. Section 14 dealt with the manner in which the land vested in the Government under the said Act shall be disposed of. Sub-section 1 of Section 14 empowered the Government to allot the lands vested in it for use of house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house sites or transferred to the weaker-sections of the people dependant on agriculture for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. The proviso there under sets out that, not less than one half of the total extent of a land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and out of the balance, not less than two-thirds shall be allotted to the members of the backward class and classes of citizens notified by the Government for purposes of Clause 4 of Article 15 of our Constitution. Section 23 which dealt with exemptions made it explicitly clear that, nothing in the Act shall apply to the lands held by the State or Central Government or any local authority, lands held by religious, charitable or educational institutions including a Wakf, lands held by an undertaking owned, controlled or managed by a Government company or a corporation etcetera. A quick scan of these provisions of the Land Ceiling Act make it clear that it is a social welfare legislation intended to give effect to the directive principles enshrined in Clauses (b) & (c) of Article 39 of our Constitution. Once the Tribunal created under Section 6 of this Act determines the ceiling limit of the land held by a person, the consequence thereof is that such a person must surrender the land held in excess thereof by him. Further, once the land is surrendered and taken possession of by the Revenue Divisional Officer in accordance with Section 11, the said land vests in the State. Thereafter, the distribution of such vested land has also been contemplated and provided for under Section 14 of this Act. Significantly, Section 13 required the Tribunal to determine as to whether the land held by a protected tenant stood transferred to him in accordance with Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy of Land Act, 1950 also. 22. Thereafter, the distribution of such vested land has also been contemplated and provided for under Section 14 of this Act. Significantly, Section 13 required the Tribunal to determine as to whether the land held by a protected tenant stood transferred to him in accordance with Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy of Land Act, 1950 also. 22. The legislature of the former State of Hyderabad initially enacted ‘The Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act, 1952, Act VIII of 1952 for purpose of enfranchising certain classes of imams and to charge in lieu of relinquishment of reversionary rights of Government and conferment of all proprietary rights on the Inamdars, a quit rent or Jodi at 1/8th of the revenue assessment. However, it was considered later on that this piece of legislation is not in tune with the modern trends inasmuch as no provision for the rights of the tenants of the Inamdars have been created. Therefore, it was considered appropriate that, while compensating the Inamdar, the rights of the tenants should also be adequately safeguarded. Therefore, the legislature of State of Hyderabad enacted Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act No.8 of 1955. The State legislation received the assent of the President on 16.07.1955 and was thereafter published in Hyderabad Extraordinary Gazette No.90 on 20.07.1955. In terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 1, this Act came into force on 20.07.1955. In Section 2, various expressions found in the enactment have been defined. The expression ‘Inam’ has been defined in Section 2(1) (c) as under: “‘Inam’ means land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a 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 recognized as imams by the Government after the abolition of the Jagirs. The expression ‘kabiz-e-khadim’ has been defined in Clause E of Section 2(1) in the following terms: “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 les than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue” The expression ‘protected tenant’ has been defined, as the protected tenant as defined in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Section 3 of this Act declared that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant, sanad, order or other instrument, Act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all imams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. Thus, on and from 20.07.1955, all Inams stood abolished and they vested in the State. By virtue of Section 3(2)(b), all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interest expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 4 enabled every Inamdar as entitled to be registered as occupant of all inam lands with effect from the date of their vesting in the State other than certain types of lands specified therein. Sub-section 2 thereof clearly makes out that, no Inamdar shall be registered as an occupant of any land, under Sub-section 1 unless, he pays to the Government as premium, an amount equal to 25 times the difference between the Jodi or quit-rent, if any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. Similarly, under Section 5, every kabiz-e-kadim is entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such inam lands in his possession which were under his personal cultivation with effect from the date of vesting. Section 6 dealt with registration of permanent tenants as occupants, while Section 7 provided for registration of protected tenants as occupants of such inam lands in his possession. Section 6 dealt with registration of permanent tenants as occupants, while Section 7 provided for registration of protected tenants as occupants of such inam lands in his possession. Importantly, the protected tenant in respect of such inam lands in his possession, as may be left over after the allotment under Section 4, which were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the family holding. Section 8 dealt with registration of non-protected tenant as occupant of such inam lands in his possession. Section 10 required the Collector to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the 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. He should also decide the land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands. The expression ‘Collector’ as defined in Section 2 (1)(a) means the Collector of the District and includes any other officer, not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, who may be authorized by the Government. Section 10 required the Collector to examine the nature and history of the land in respect of which a claim is made for registration as occupants under Sections 4 to 8 and then decide in whose favour and in whose respect of which land is claimed to be allowed. Therefore, the Collector before ordering registration as occupant, will have to be satisfied that the lands in question were under personal cultivation of such a claimant and the said question will have to be decided taking into account all the attending circumstances prevailing then. It is also incumbent for the Collector to find out whether the protected tenant was declared as such as per the procedure contemplated by the Tenancy Act and as to whether the person claiming right as a protected tenant, did make the application to that effect and as to whether such an application was made within the period of one year from the commencement of the Tenancy Act or not. Section 12 of this Act dealt with the determination of compensation payable while, Section 15 dealt with the said payments. Section 12 of this Act dealt with the determination of compensation payable while, Section 15 dealt with the said payments. Section 17 conferred the power on the Collector to determine the total compensation payable. Thus, the Inams Abolition Act has provided for a comprehensive scrutiny of the entire issue and provided for all remedial aspects relating to such a claim. In other words, this Act is a complete code in itself. 23. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(b) of this Act, all Inams stood abolished with effect from 20.07.1955 and have vested in the State simultaneously extinguishing all rights title and interest existing earlier in favour of the Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, in respect of Inam lands except to the limited extent of their interest and title expressly saved under the other provisions of the said Act. Inspite of granting enormous time and opportunities, the State has not produced any material as to how the land in question was considered to be an Inam land prior to 20.07.1955 and as to how the interests of any Inamdar, permanent tenant or protected tenant or non-protected tenant therein, has been saved pursuant to any exercise carried out by the Collector in accordance with Section 10 of this Act. No material has been placed indicating any such enquiry that was conducted by the Collector with reference to the land in question. Further, if the land is Inam Land, without deciding the right and title of the Inamdar, sale transactions would not have been permitted concerning this land in the year 1965 by way of registered sale deeds. Further, at no stage, the State Government claimed ownership right upon abolition of any Inam, over this very parcel of land. I, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the land in question was never treated as forming part of any Inam which stood abolished with effect from 20.07.1955. 24. With a view to regulate the relations of landholders and tenants of agricultural lands and to provide for matters concerning alienation of such lands, the Hyderabad State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, was ushered in. 24. With a view to regulate the relations of landholders and tenants of agricultural lands and to provide for matters concerning alienation of such lands, the Hyderabad State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, was ushered in. Section 5 of this Act created a fiction in favour of all such persons who are lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person to be treated as a tenant, if such land is not cultivated personally by the landholder and if the person cultivating the land is not a member of the landholder’s family or a servant on wages payable in cash and kind or a mortgagee in possession. Section 6 of this Act clearly stipulated that, after the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act, no land shall, save as provided in Section 7, be leased for any period whatsoever and, save as aforesaid, no tenancy shall be created in respect of any land. Section 7(1) (a) enabled a landholder holding land, the area of which is equal to or less than three times the area of the family holding for the local area concerned, may lease the land held by him. Section 9 required every such lease made under Section 7 shall be in writing and the landholder shall and the tenant may file a copy thereof in the office of the Tahsildar within thirty days of the date on which the lease is executed. Section 19 protected any tenancy of land from being terminated before the expiration of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased. Chapter IV of this Act commencing with Section 34 dealt with protected tenants. Sub-section 1 of Section 34 declares that a person shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section 2 and 3 thereof, be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of land, if he has held such land as a tenant continuously for a period of not less than six years in the Fasli years 1342 to 1352 or for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding the 1st January, 1948 or for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier than the 1st day of the Fasli year 1353 (6th October, 1943), and completed before the commencement of this enactment and such a person has cultivated such land personally during such period. Section 38 conferred a right on a protected tenant to be entitled to purchase the landholders interest in the land held by him as a protected tenant. Section 38(E) empowered the Government, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette to declare in respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein, that ownership of all lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landholders in such area under any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Act shall, subject to the conditions laid down in Sub-section 7 of Section 38, stand transferred to and vest in the protected tenants holding them from such date to be deemed to be the full owners of such lands. This is a salutary principle of recognizing the right of the protected tenant to transform himself to be the owner of the land of which he was earlier a tenant, subject of course to the conditions set out in Sub-section 7 of Section 38. 25. In paragraph 11 of the comprehensive counter affidavit filed by Sri K. Venkateswarlu, Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal on 11.06.2012, it is averred that, land of an extent of Ac.138 belonging to the Inamdars in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, has been sold by them through simple sale agreements on sada papers in favour of different individuals on 30.12.1970 and these purchasers of land on simple sale agreements have filed applications for issue of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted such certificates through his proceedings dated 07.03.1991 and 17.05.1991, as the case may. As was already noticed supra, the surplus landholders have surrendered the surplus land on 11.01.1977 and 23.02.1979 and hence an entry is also made in the revenue record describing the surrendered land as khariz khata (government land). By virtue of the surrender of the lands, they vested in the government free from all encumberances. The learned Government Pleader has placed in the paper book, number of agreements of sale said to have been executed on one single day namely 30.12.1970 for various extents of land in favour of various individuals. Photo copies of those multiple agreements of sales were placed from page No.1 to 183 of the material paper book filed in April 2012 into the Court. Photo copies of those multiple agreements of sales were placed from page No.1 to 183 of the material paper book filed in April 2012 into the Court. All these documents are unregistered agreements of sale and executed on the same day. The fact that, all these agreements of sale are executed on a simple white paper on the same day namely 30.12.1970 does not inspire any confidence in my mind about their genuineness. It is so difficult to imagine that so many people would have expressed their desire to purchase varying extents of land and then enter into sale transaction striking appropriate terms for purchase of such extents of land and then getting executed the documents of agreement of sale also on the same day. If one were to assume that each transaction has merely consumed 15 minutes time – on a conservative scale-no more than 96 transactions can be carried during one whole day. It is also strange that, not one of these many intending purchasers thought it appropriate to reduce the terms of the agreement of sale on any stamp paper. Far stranger - than even fiction – no one made any attempt to get the regular sale deed executed in his favour, later on, leave aside getting it registered. 26. Far more strange are the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, who passed orders on 07.03.1991. He was said to be dealing with an application said to have been made to him on 28.12.1990. In paragraph 3, the Revenue Divisional Officer records as under: “After condoning the delay a detailed report was called for from the M.R.O, Qutbullapur, who in his letter No.B/4399/90, dated 6-1-1991 reported that the land(s) bearing S.No.(s) 307 situated at Gajularamaram Village is classified as Dastegardan and Smt. Lala Begum and 2 others are recorded as Inamdars.” As was noticed supra, the proceedings themselves are initiated pursuant to an application said to have been made to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the first time on 28.12.1990. One wonders as to when he passed orders condoning the delay and as to when the RDO called for a detailed report and as to how the Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur could file his detailed report by 6th January, 1991, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. I, sincerely wish that the Government machinery functions at all times with the same speed and efficiency. 27. I, sincerely wish that the Government machinery functions at all times with the same speed and efficiency. 27. The proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer refer to the depositions made before him in the matter on 08.02.1991 and 23.02.1991 by the purchasers of land from Inamdars and thereafter, he granted the occupancy rights in favour of the subsequent sada sale agreement purchasers. In terms of Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is placed in the same paper book from pages 185-190 does not inspire any confidence, as it does not refer to any adjudication of the rights of the Inamdars to hold such vast extents of land after the Inams are abolished in 1955. It does not occur to the RDO that it is needed to ascertain that these lands have vested in the government or not, be fore granting Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC). From page 191 onwards, Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) granted in favour of several individuals have also been placed, in Form III. Majority of these orders in Form III were bearing the date 23.03.1991. Only five of them bear the date 25.03.1991. Interestingly, all the orders dated 23.03.1991 and 25.03.1991 have declared that each of the occupant as liable to pay to the Government an amount of Rs.180/- or Rs.270/-, etcetera, as the case be, towards premium in ten annual installments commencing from 07.03.1991. However, very strangely the Schedule to Form III, of the orders of the RDO, in the remarks column consistently recorded as follows: “Remitted the entire premium amount of Rs.180/- wide treasury challan No.685 Dt.22-3-91 at Medchal.” A similar remark with regard to Rs.270/- is recorded in the remaining certificates evidencing the remittances of the said money on 22.03.1991. The Revenue Divisional Officer signed the proceedings and put the date beneath his signature as 23.3.1991 or 25.3.1991. The contents of the Form-III and the contents of the remarks column of the Schedule of the said Form-III do not match with each other and they do not go hand in hand. The Revenue Divisional Officer signed the proceedings and put the date beneath his signature as 23.3.1991 or 25.3.1991. The contents of the Form-III and the contents of the remarks column of the Schedule of the said Form-III do not match with each other and they do not go hand in hand. There is no reference made anywhere as to when the Revenue Divisional Officer finalized the premium amount, liable to be paid by each of the occupants prior to 23.03.1991, for the occupants to come to know of it and then to remit the said money by all of them once again on the same day on 22.03.1991. So many people could not have come to know of their liability to pay the premium amount and could not have paid the same also on the same day. Further, if a premium amount has already been paid by the occupants the previous day itself, or on the date of passing of the order by RDO, there was no necessity for the Revenue Divisional officer to grant them ten annual increments commencing from 07.03.1991 to pay the premium to the Government. No responsible officer would grant installments for an amount already paid.. I have therefore no hesitation that the proceedings said to have been carried out by the Revenue Divisional Officer, HyderabadEast Division, granting occupancy rights under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955 are not at all genuine. They are the result of a crude manipulation. Hence no legal significance need be attached to these proceedings. 28. When once the Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) pressed into service, by the learned Government Pleader for casting a doubt on the right of the petitioners to acquire/possess Ac.18.00 of land, pale out of legal consideration, for the sheer lack of authenticity and genuineness around the Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC’s), the issue becomes liable to be examined from a different perspective as to whether the State Government and or the Collector at any stage considered these lands as government lands vested in it pursuant to abolition of Inams. Apart from the pleadings set up, shifting the stand regularly, the only fact which remains steadfast from the respondents point of view is this: the State Government has treated the land as a “ceiling surplus land” and hence considered it for disposal by allocating it to the sixth respondent. 29. Apart from the pleadings set up, shifting the stand regularly, the only fact which remains steadfast from the respondents point of view is this: the State Government has treated the land as a “ceiling surplus land” and hence considered it for disposal by allocating it to the sixth respondent. 29. If the land in question was treated, to have been vested in the State pursuant to the abolition of any Inam, the question of allowing any proceedings to take place with regard to the said land under the Land Ceiling Act would not arise at all. Lands belonging to the Government are not subject to land ceiling laws. Lands held by private persons alone are subject matter of regulation by the land ceiling law. It is therefore clear that all through the respondents 1 to 5 have been treating the land in question as a ceiling surplus land but not as lands vested in the State Government, pursuant to abolition of any Inam. 30. In accordance with the exercise carried out by the Collector, under the Land Ceiling Act, the original landholders were declared as surplus land holders. Consequently, they have surrendered Ac.38.26 cents in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram village and possession thereof was delivered to the Government in Form X on 11.01.1977. Similarly, another extent of Ac.137.13 cents was surrendered possession to the Government in Form-X on 12.02.1977. A further extent of Ac.142.21 cents was surrendered possession by the surplus landholders in Form-X on 23.02.1979. That is how more than Ac.317 of land in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village came to be surrendered to the State Government between January 1977 to February 1979. Thus, from the respective dates when these lands have been surrendered to the State Government, the State Government started treating them as ceiling surplus lands vested in the Government. Hence, on that premise, the alienation proposals in favour of the sixth respondent came to be examined. 31. Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act required the Revenue Divisional Officer to take possession of ceiling surplus lands which he did in the instant case. While surrendering the surplus lands, landholders have simultaneously retained Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land with them. Therefore, the alienations made by the landholders to the extent of Ac.123.72 cents retainable extent of land cannot be faulted at all. While surrendering the surplus lands, landholders have simultaneously retained Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land with them. Therefore, the alienations made by the landholders to the extent of Ac.123.72 cents retainable extent of land cannot be faulted at all. The petitioners have successfully demonstrated as to how they acquired title to Ac.18.00 of land forming part of the retainable extent of land held by the landholders. Though, Sri Y.N. Lohitha learned counsel for the sixth respondent has raised a contention that the land purchased by the petitioners is not forming a contiguous block, but however, Sri Hari Sreedhar has successfully demonstrated as to how the Ac.18.00 cents of land formed into contiguous block, with reference to the land held by Sri Netrananda Reddy. He could demonstrate that this Ac.18.00 of land belonging to the petitioners is lying to the south of Sri Netrananda Reddy’s land. I am therefore of the opinion that, the survey sketch presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, indicating that the land held by the petitioners as forming part of the retainable extent of land deserves acceptance unhesitatingly. Still, the objection raised on behalf of the sixth respondent that, when the facts are in such serious disputes, the parties must be relegated to the Civil Court to enable the evidence to be gathered properly, need to be answered. There is no real bar or prohibition from collecting evidence in a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of our Constitution. If the circumstances so warrant, such an exercise can be carried out. But, as a rule of prudence and self imposed restraint, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would not normally undertake collection of evidence. In fact the material papers, produced, so long as admissible in evidence, are considered as evidence and on that basis writ petitions are decided. In the present case, the controversy was centered around the nature of the land. What was essentially required to be decided is whether this land vested in the Government pursuant to the Abolition of Inams in 1955 or was it vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances, pursuant to their surrender by the excess landholders after statutory adjudication in accordance with the Land Ceiling Act. What was essentially required to be decided is whether this land vested in the Government pursuant to the Abolition of Inams in 1955 or was it vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances, pursuant to their surrender by the excess landholders after statutory adjudication in accordance with the Land Ceiling Act. Once this controversy is resolved and a firm opinion is reached that the lands in question vested in the Government free from all encumbrances as it was surrendered by the surplus landholders, in terms of the Land Ceiling Act, what remains thereafter to be resolved is the mere localization of the land in question. At the time of surrender proceedings, as is required in terms of Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act, necessary Panchanama is prepared and a sketch is also prepared localizing the surrendered extents of land. Therefore, there was never any difficulty with regard to localization of the land. The difficulty arose only because of the encroachments allowed to be made freely in the ceiling surplus land by various individuals who are backed by the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted improperly by the Revenue Divisional Officer, subsequent to the land being surrendered to the State Government under the Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the controversy in the present case is not such a type as to require collection of oral evidence warranting institution of any civil suit. further, the principle that no person can be deprived of his legitimate right of use/possession of landed property without recourse to law is too well known, to be allowed to be disturbed on the basis of a Panchanama prepared by a Tahsildar while delivering possession of land to the sixth respondent. 32. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners succeed in this writ petition. Inasmuch as, the petitioners not challenged the validity of the orders of the State Government alienating the land in favour of the sixth respondent, they have no manner of any right to object the State Government from allocating or alienating the land belonging to it, other than the one held by them, in favour of the sixth respondent. But what the petitioners can legitimately object to is, the land held by them cannot be included in the land allocated or alienated in favour of the sixth respondent, unauthroizedly. But what the petitioners can legitimately object to is, the land held by them cannot be included in the land allocated or alienated in favour of the sixth respondent, unauthroizedly. The petitioners have every right to protect their right title and interest in the land in question. They can be divested of such a right, only through a process of law but not by preparing a Panchanama by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the respondents are not liable to prevent the petitioners from put to effective use the land of Ac.18.00 purchased by them in Sy.No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal. 33. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.