ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Writ Petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings in case No.F1/945/2023, dated 03.10.2023, under Section 24 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act 1955’), setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by respondent No.3, vide proceedings No. J/10064/2015, dated 21.01.2023, in favour of petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act 1955, and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri L.Ravinder, learned counsel-on-record for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Janardhan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35. 3. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the lands admeasuring Acs.21-05 gts forming part of Sy.No.620, situated at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are inam lands; that Respondent No.3 vide proceedings Nos. J/712/1979 dated 31.08.1979, J/3169/1991, dated 13.02.1992, J/1344/1993, dated 16.09.1993, J/7341/1992 dated 16.09.1993 and J/153/1992 dated 27.03.1992, issued Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC) in favour of Kore Narayana, Ramidi Ram Reddy, Gaddam Narsimha Reddy, Ramidi Janga Reddy and R.Sreeram Reddy respectively, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.18-36 gts; that the balance extent of Acs.2-09 gts belongs to late father of petitioners, as such, the petitioners made an application to respondent No.3 for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2-09 gts and the same was taken up as case No.J/10064/2015. 4. It is further averred that respondent No.3, after due enquiry, issued notice to respondent Nos.5 to 35 herein and also called for a report from the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar submitted report vide letter No.B/972/2014, dated 09.07.2014, stating that major part of Sy.No.620 is covered by houses and Hanuman Temple and only a small extent of land is lying vacant; that as there was ambiguity in the said report, the land was surveyed by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and as per his report, dated 09.01.2023, land to an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is vacant land and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple; and basing on the said report, respondent No.3 issued Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners in respect of Acs.2-04 gts vide proceedings dated 21.01.2023. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 21.01.2023, respondent Nos.5 to 35 preferred appeal before respondent No.2 vide case No.F1/945/2023, who vide proceedings, dated 03.10.2023, allowed the appeal setting aside the proceedings dated 21.01.2023, with an observation that issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of non-agricultural lands is governed by Section 9 of the Act, 1955 and as per Section 24 (2) of the Act, 1955, the same has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunals. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 03.10.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the report dated 09.01.2023 of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is vacant and the petitioners were in possession thereof and an extent of Ac.0-05 gts is covered by temple and therefore, respondent No.3, by duly taking into consideration the ground reality and basing upon the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, has rightly passed the Order issuing Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of vacant land admeasuring Acs.2-04 gts, in favour of petitioners, however, respondent No.2, without properly appreciating the facts and the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, came to an erroneous conclusion that an extent of Acs.2-04 gts is being used for community development such as, Hanuman Temple and Village School. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has erroneously referred to Section 9 of the Act, 1955, though the same has no application, as the subject land is a vacant land. He further submitted that respondent No.2 misinterpreted the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in A.P. Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad Vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad , [ 2004 (5) ALD 644 ] while allowing the appeal and therefore, the impugned Order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, the same is unsustainable and finally, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 would submit that respondent No.3 has erroneously allowed the application filed by the petitioners without considering the fact that the subject land was not being cultivated and it is no more an agricultural land and further, the same is covered by houses, school and temple. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 would submit that respondent No.3 has erroneously allowed the application filed by the petitioners without considering the fact that the subject land was not being cultivated and it is no more an agricultural land and further, the same is covered by houses, school and temple. He further submitted that as the subject land is no more an agricultural land, the issue has to be decided by Special Tribunals under Section 9 of the Act, 1955. He also submitted that to consider the application of petitioners filed for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate, the subject lands ought to have been under cultivation and in occupation of the petitioners. In the present case, admittedly, the lands are not being cultivated and in fact, put to non-agricultural use, therefore, respondent No.2, on proper appreciation of facts, has rightly allowed the appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well- reasoned order passed by respondent No.2 and finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 relied upon the following judgments; 1) Chama Narasimha Reddy and another Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and ors., 2007 (2) ALD 28 2) Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 27.04.1993 in W.A.No.600/1987 3) Santosh Kumar Shivagonda Patil and ors Vs. Balasaheb Thukaram Shevale and ors., (2009) 9 SCC 352 9. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 35 further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in B.Laxmi (died), per her LRs Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 (2) ALT 330 (DB) held that actual possession of land and personal cultivation as on 01.11.1973 is a sine quo non for grant of ORC. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, as per the Pahanies of the year 1973-74, the names of Govindu, Janaiah, Vishwanatham and Y.Sudharshan-father of petitioners have been recorded as Pattadars/Inamdars and the names of Sriram Reddy, Narayan Reddy, Venkat Reddy and Kore Narayana have been recorded as occupants. Thus, it is clear that as on the crucial date i.e., 01.11.1973, the ancestors of unofficial respondents were in actual possession. Thus, it is clear that as on the crucial date i.e., 01.11.1973, the ancestors of unofficial respondents were in actual possession. Further, as per the statement of father of the petitioners i.e., Y.Sudharshan before RDO, he is 1/4 th share holder of the land in Sy.No.620 along with other survey numbers and an extent of Acs.2 – 00 gts is being utilized for community development, such as Hanuman Temple, Village School, etc. Thus, it is evident that an extent of Acs.2-00 gts is being used for non-agricultural purpose and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the subject land. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for unofficial respondents, the points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the ancestor of the petitioners i.e., their father- Y.Sudharshan was in occupation or possession of the subject land as on the crucial date, i.e., on 01.11.1973, thereby entitling petitioners for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate? (2) If so, respondent No.2 was justified in setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners, by referring to Sections 9 and 24(2) of the Act, 1955. (3) To what relief? 12. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.18- 36 gts, forming part of Sy.No.620, under different proceedings in the years 1979, 1992 and 1993, to different individuals. 13. The dispute revolves around Acs.2-09 gts, which belongs to the father of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the name of their father-Y.Sudharshan was recorded as inamdar in respect of an extent of Acs.2-09 gts and as such, they are entitled to issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate. 14. The issue of grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the inamdar and the successor-in-interest has been elaborately dealt by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.Ramender Reddy Vs. District Collector, Hyderabad , (1993) 2 An WR 84 (DB) , wherein it is held as hereunder:- “39. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the rest of the provisions were brought into force on 1.11.1973. District Collector, Hyderabad , (1993) 2 An WR 84 (DB) , wherein it is held as hereunder:- “39. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the rest of the provisions were brought into force on 1.11.1973. We have already pointed out that the right to get occupancy right is not co-related to the right of vesting of imams in the Government. In other words, though the lands vested in State on 20 th July, 1955, if the Inamdar or various types of tenants were in possession of land as on 1.11.1973, they would be entitled to occupancy rights under the Act. ….. We have already referred to the definition of vesting under Section 2 of the Act. It contemplates two-dates of vesting viz., one for the purposes of Section 3(2)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and Section 3(3) and Section 3(4) and another for the purpose of the remaining provisions of the Act. The date of vesting for the purposes of Section 3(2)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) and Section 3 (3) and Section 34 is the date of publication of the Act in the Official Gazette. The date of vesting for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act is the date appointed by the Government under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. In other words, the date of vesting for the purpose of abolition of the inams and the consequences of abolition and for the purpose of repeal is 20 th July, 1955, whereas for the purpose of the other provisions of the Act, the date of vesting is the date appointed by the Government, namely, 1 st November, 1973. Therefore, the date of vesting for grant of occupancy rights will be the notified date, namely, 1 st November, 1973.” 15. From a reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is explicit that the condition sine quo non for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate is that the Inamdar or various types of tenants should have been in possession of the inam land as on 01.11.1973. 16. From a reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is explicit that the condition sine quo non for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate is that the Inamdar or various types of tenants should have been in possession of the inam land as on 01.11.1973. 16. The aforesaid condition stipulated for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in B.Ramender Reddy ’s case (cited supra) has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in B.Laxmi (died) per LRs (cited supra), wherein it is observed as hereunder:- “Actual possession of land and personal cultivation as on 01.11.1973 is a sine quo non for grant of ORC.” 17. In the instant case, even as per the case of the petitioners, their father’s name was recorded as ‘inamdar’ of the subject land, whereas the names of the fathers of the unofficial respondents, i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 35 were recorded as ‘occupants’. Therefore, evidently, the subject land was not under occupation or personal cultivation of father of the petitioners as on 01.11.1973. This aspect goes to the root of the case of the petitioners regarding their entitlement for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate. The condition stipulated in B.Ramender Reddy’s case (cited supra) regarding entitlement of inamdar for grant of ORC is not satisfied. In other words, the petitioners failed to show that their father was in occupation or personal cultivation of the subject land as on 01.11.1973 and as such, the original inamdar i.e., father of the petitioners and the petitioners, who claim rights over the subject land being legal heirs of their father, are not entitled to grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. 18. Thus, point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No.2 :- 19. To decide this issue, before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to refer to Sections 9(2) and 24(2) of the Act, 1955 and Rule 18(2) of the Rules made thereunder. Section 9(2) of the Act, 1955 reads as under: “Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force.” 20. Section 9(2) of the Act, 1955 reads as under: “Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force.” 20. Section 24 (2) of the Act, 1955, reads as under: “If any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final.” 21. As per Rule 18(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, Special Tribunal has been prescribed as authority under Section 24 (2) of the Act and vide G.O.Ms.No.1613, dated 13.12.1975, ‘District and Sessions Judges’ are constituted as ‘Special Tribunals’ for the purposes of this Act. 22. From a combined reading of Sections 9(2) and 24(2) of the Act, 1955, and Rule 18(2) thereunder, it is manifest that if any question/dispute arises as to whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the District and Sessions Judge, who is prescribed as the competent authority under the Act, 1955. Thus, the issue as to whether the holder of inam land is entitled to keep the same, even after conversion of the same into non- agricultural purpose, has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunal, i.e., District Judge who has been delegated with such powers, vide GOMs.No.1613, dated 13.12.1975. 23. In the instant case, respondent No.2 has set aside the order of respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, by observing that the subject land was utilized for non-agricultural purpose, as such, grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 4 of the Act, 1955 is not permissible and further, held that the order of respondent No.3 issuing ORC is without jurisdiction. 24. With regard to usage /nature of subject land , i.e?., whether it is agricultural land or non-agricultural land, there are two conflicting reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Inspector of Survey, as already narrated supra. This Court, while adjudicating the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into the veracity of the reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Inspector of Survey and act as a fact-finding Court and venture to give any finding regarding that aspect. 25. This Court, while adjudicating the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into the veracity of the reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Inspector of Survey and act as a fact-finding Court and venture to give any finding regarding that aspect. 25. However, in view of the finding of this Court that as on 01.11.1973, the father of the petitioners was not found to be the occupant of the subject property, the nature of the land assumes no significance. 26. Further, the petitioners failed to place any material on record to show that the subject land is being cultivated or is capable of being cultivation, and that the same is under their occupation. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the unofficial respondents that the subject land has been converted to non-agricultural purposes and number of houses, school, temple, etc., have been raised therein, therefore, the application of petitioners for issuance of ORC cannot be entertained by respondent No.2 and that as per Sections 9(2) and 24(2) of the Act, the same has to be adjudicated by a ‘Special Tribunal’. 27. In the light of the above analysis, when there are conflicting reports of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Inspector of Survey with regard to nature of the subject land and when there is any amount of ambiguity as to the exact nature of the subject land, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 erred in taking into consideration only the report of the Tahsildar, overlooking the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, and holding that the subject land being non-agricultural land, respondent No.3 is not empowered to grant ORC in favour of petitioners. 28. Respondent No.2 has lost sight of the fact as to whether the father of the petitioners was occupier or personal cultivator of the subject land as on 01.11.1973, thereby entitling the petitioners for grant of ORC and has set aside the order of respondent No.3 granting ORC on a different ground, i.e., taking into account the nature of the subject land, which is not appreciable. 29. This point is accordingly answered. Point No.3 :- 30. 29. This point is accordingly answered. Point No.3 :- 30. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 and the legal proposition laid down in B.Ramender Reddy ’s case (cited supra), which has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in B.Laxmi (died) per LRs (cited supra), this Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled to ORC in respect of the subject land and the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 32. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.