ORDER : Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned standing counsel appearing for temple. Perused the material available on record. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order in case No.FI/6183/2004 dated 22.09.2006 passed by respondent No.1 in confirming the orders in File No.L/708/1999 dated 27.10.2003 of respondent No.2 in the appeal filed under Section 24 of A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act 1955’) in respect of land in Sy.Nos.10 to 29, 31, 33, 230 to 238, 273 to 275 and 366 total admeasuring Ac.77-30 guntas situated at Malkapur village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as ‘subject lands’). BRIEF HISTORY: 3. The petitioners are appellants in Case No.F1/6183/2004 before the respondent No.1/Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District. The Appeal was filed being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.10.2003 vide file No.L/708/1999, whereby the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella has granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘ORC’) in favour of Deval Balaji in respect of the subject lands. 4. Facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioners claims to be owners and exclusive possessors of subject lands owned by their predecessors. The petitioner No.8 is the legal heir of late Venkat Reddy who had two sons by name Sri S. Narayana Reddy and the petitioner No.8 herein, one S. Malla Reddy, who died leaving behind him two sons by name Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy and Sri S. Raji Reddy i.e., the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. The petitioner Nos.4 to 9 are the only legal heirs of late Chandra Reddy, who died leaving behind him his two sons late Venkat Reddy and late Dharma Reddy. Sri Venkat Reddy died leaving behind him Sri S. Narasimha Reddy, Sri S. Kista Reddy and Sri S. Penta Reddy i.e. the petitioner Nos.4 to 6 respectively. Sri Dharma Reddy died leaving behind him sons i.e., petitioner Nos.1,7 and 9. The petitioner Nos.10 to 12 are the legal heirs of Sri Ram Reddy who had two sons namely Sri Ramchander Reddy, Sri Ram Reddy and Sri Anantha Reddy. Sri Ramchander Reddy died leaving behind him Sri Linga Reddy the petitioner No.10. The second son of Sri Ram Reddy died leaving behind him i.e., Sri Anji Reddy, the petitioner No.11 herein. The petitioner Nos.10 to 12 are the legal heirs of Sri Ram Reddy who had two sons namely Sri Ramchander Reddy, Sri Ram Reddy and Sri Anantha Reddy. Sri Ramchander Reddy died leaving behind him Sri Linga Reddy the petitioner No.10. The second son of Sri Ram Reddy died leaving behind him i.e., Sri Anji Reddy, the petitioner No.11 herein. The petitioner No.12 is son of Sri S. Malka Reddy and petitioner Nos.13,14 and 15 are the sons of Sri S. Adivi Reddy. All the petitioners claims to be owners and possessors of the schedule lands totally admeasuring Ac.77.30 guntas and would submit that they were in possession and having enjoyment rights from their fore-fathers and their fathers. The petitioners submits that the schedule lands are patta lands but not temple inam lands and the names of late Sri Venkat Reddy, Sri Chandra Reddy and Sri Ram Reddy have been recorded as pattedars and cultivators in possession, in the revenue records particularly in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, therefore, no enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 1955 can be conducted in respect of the schedule lands. 5. It is submitted that Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Chevella has no right to claim any ORC in respect of the schedule lands and if at all the schedule lands have been accorded to the said Balaji Devasthanam, it was done behind the petitioners back and it is not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners further submits that they are entitled to be granted occupancy rights since the ancestors of petitioners were in possession of the schedule lands and a statutory right vested in them which cannot be taken away without conducting proper enquiry. It is further submitted that the Trustee of the said temple is trying to mislead on the basis of a Muntakhab and that Muntakhab is only a statement and cannot override the rights granted under the Record of Rights Act. It is further submitted that the Trustee of the said temple is trying to mislead on the basis of a Muntakhab and that Muntakhab is only a statement and cannot override the rights granted under the Record of Rights Act. It is submitted that as per Sethwar and Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the petitioners ancestors were original pattedars and possessors of the schedule lands and that the Management, Endowments Department issued a notification dated 27.06.2003 for conducting public auction to lease the lands belonging to Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam situated at Chevella Village, Rangareddy District and fixed the date for conducting the auction lease as 16.07.2004 and the said notification was challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ petition No.14272 of 2003 before the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad wherein this Court granted interim orders staying the auction and subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of on 16.01.2004. It is further submitted that during the pendency of a case before the respondent No.2 vide Case No.L/708/1999 filed under Section 4 of the Act, 1955 in which petitioners filed objection petition on 12.09.2004, petitioners came to know about the ex-parte orders passed in Case No.L/708/1999 by respondent No.2 and immediately applied for certified copy on 13.09.2004. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 had found that no ‘objections’ were received from the petitioners during the course of hearing while reserving the case for orders, though the petitioners have filed objection petition through their counsels in response to the notice issued in Form No.11. dated 22.03.1999 and the counsel of the petitioners appeared before the respondent No.2 as and when the matter was posted for hearing. 6. It is further submitted that inspite of filing objection petition, the respondent No.2 proceeded, simply ignoring the petitioners objection petition and without giving any opportunity of hearing, proceeded ex-parte by relying on a pahani for the year 1973-74 furnished by respondent No.3 and passed orders in favour of Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple holding that the Balaji Temple is in possession and was recorded as pattedar vide pahani patrikas for the years 1954-55 and 1997-78 and that the revenue authorities erroneously entered the name of Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam in the revenue records for the year 1961. It is further submitted that the document filed by the petitioners clearly establish prima-facie and balance of convenience in their favour and for which reason petitioners have filed appeal before the respondent No.1 to set-aside the orders of the respondent No.2 and also seeking orders staying the operation of the order in Proceedings No.L/708/1999 dated 12.05.2006 and appeal was called and inspite of the petitioners representing that the their counsel is on the way, without heeding to their representation, in the absence of petitioners counsel, the case was posted for orders. Thereafter, petitioners counsel filed a memo enclosing copies of sethwar, pahanies for the year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1977-78, 1978-79 and meanwhile sought time for filing pahanies for the year 1970-71, 1973-74, 1976-77, 1979-80 and prayed to grant time to file pahanies, by re-opening the appeal. It is further submitted that the petitioners counsel tried to get the certified copy of Munthakab from respondent No.4 as well as from A.P.State Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and on verification it was noticed that the Munthakab filed by the respondent No.4 and the copy of which the petitioners have obtained from the A.P.State Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaka, Hyderabad are different, which amounts to suppression of facts by the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the Munthakab order issued from Office of Nizamath Atiyat Government of A.P.Hyderabad and on its translation, it was revealed that one Sainaappa Chari and Parashunamma Chari submitted applications along with testimonials granted by desmukhs of Narkhoda for the years 1177 Fasli, 1158 Fasli, and 1292 Fasli, in respect of Inam lands mentioned in column No.6 (i.e., schedule lands) of Munthakab for issuance of mash on the name of temple Balaji, Chevella. After processing, as per rule it was ordered that Inam lands situated at village Malkapur admeasuring 80 acres 23 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.104.06 NP and village Kumrah admeasuring 35 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.15/- are reinstated in the name of Temple Venkateswar Balaji, Chevella. After processing, as per rule it was ordered that Inam lands situated at village Malkapur admeasuring 80 acres 23 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.104.06 NP and village Kumrah admeasuring 35 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.15/- are reinstated in the name of Temple Venkateswar Balaji, Chevella. It was brought to the notice of petitioners by their counsel that there was no prior lawful grant in the name of temple and only testimonials were based on which re-instatement was given which does not come under the preview of Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 and even as per the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the petitioners grand father had taken loan for a sum of Rs.360/- from Co-operative Society, Anjuman Imdadi Naharmin & mortgaged lands in Sy.Nos. 24, 25, 33, 31, 36, 29, 18, 11, 12, 10, 13, 14, 24, 28, 27, 15, 16, 22, 21, 19, 20 and 17 and also obtained a sum of Rs.336/- from the same society in Sy.Nos.278, 274, 273, 238, 231, 237, 238, 230, 232, 233, 234 and 236 and all these facts gives a genuine doubt as to the grant being given to the Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Chevella. 7. It is further submitted that “that the sethwar copy available on records clearly shows that lands are mentioned as Munthakab lands which means Inam lands and it will attract the provision of Inam Abolition Act” however, there is no record in the Sethwar as to lands are Munthakab lands which conclusion arrived is very much against the documental evidence produced by the petitioners. The petitioners further submits that recording of the lands as endowment lands in the records itself is illegal, as it was done by suppressing the real facts and no opportunity of hearing was given to prove the case of the petitioners. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. The respondent No.4 filed counter and would submit that Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple situated at Chevella Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District is endowed with vast agricultural lands situated at Chevella, Ibrahimpally, Mudimyala, Peddamangalaram, Shabad, Ramanujapuram, Dhobipet, Dungale, Tadlapally, Doswada including Malkapuram villages. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. The respondent No.4 filed counter and would submit that Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple situated at Chevella Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District is endowed with vast agricultural lands situated at Chevella, Ibrahimpally, Mudimyala, Peddamangalaram, Shabad, Ramanujapuram, Dhobipet, Dungale, Tadlapally, Doswada including Malkapuram villages. The said lands were entered in the Book of Endowments and a Munthaqab was issued by the then Thahsildar, Chevella, Rangareddy District vide proceedings No.A6/6195/58 and the said lands were originally donated long back for the maintenance of the temple and ownership of the land lies with the temple and accordingly in the revenue records, the name of the temple was shown as pattedar and the petitioners are the tenants of the said lands in question. It is further submitted that on the petition filed by the petitioners before the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Rangareddy District for grant ORC in respect of land bearing Sy.No.10 to 29, 31, 33, 230 to 238, 273 to 275 and 366 totally admeasuring Ac.77-30 guntas situated at Malkapur in Chevella Mandal, Rangareddy District under Section 4 of the Act, 1955, the Revenue Divisional officer after due enquiry has granted ORC in favour of the temple in respect of the aforesaid lands vide proceedings No.L/708/99 dated 27.10.2003. Further submitted that the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Amended Act 19/94) contemplates that “ where inams are held by or for the benefit of charitable and Religious Institutions, no persons shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 5 to 8 and the institutions alone shall be entitled to be registered as on occupant of the Inam lands” , as such the Deity is rightly entitled to be granted ORC under the provisions of the Act. 09. It is further submitted that the protection to the tenant as per A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act is not extended with regard to the lands belonging to the charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions as such the petitioners cannot claim ORC as tenants against the lands belonging to the temple. Moreover, the said lands were registered in the Block of Endowments and Muntaqab was issued way back in the year 1958 as such petitioners have no right on the temple land. Moreover, the said lands were registered in the Block of Endowments and Muntaqab was issued way back in the year 1958 as such petitioners have no right on the temple land. It is further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted due enquiry and granted ORC in favour of the deity and it was also confirmed by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District in appeal filed by the petitioners on 25.02.2005, therefore the order of the 2 nd respondent is perfectly legal and is justifiable. The person in management of the temple had issued a notification dated 27.06.2007 for conducting public auction to lease out the lands belonging to the temple and the said notification was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition in W.P.No.14272 of 2003 before the then Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 06.01.2004. It is further submitted that the ORC granted by the R.D.O.Chevella vividly reveals that during the course of hearing, notices were issued to all the concerned and in response to the notices, no objections were received and accordingly the case was reserved for orders. Basing on the material papers, R.D.O has granted ORC in favour of Deity and aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have chosen to file appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District under Section 24 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 on 22.09.2006. It is further submitted that the Muntaqab filed by the 4 th respondent and the Muntaqab obtained by the petitioners from the A.P.State Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaks, Hyderabad are distinct to each other and the Muntaqab produced by the petitioners was issued from the Office of the Nizamath, Atiyath Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under Atiyath Act way back in the year 1958 whereas the Muntaqab produced by the 4 th respondent was issued by the Thahsildar, Chevella under Endowments Rule 29 which is governed by Hyderabad regulations (Book of Endowments). Therefore, the entry made in the Muntaqab (Book of Endowments) in respect of the aforesaid lands holds good unless and until the contrary is established and that the entry made in respect of the aforesaid lands in the Book of Endowments has become conclusive since the petitioners did not take steps for several years to get the lands deleted from the register of Endowments. 10. 10. A counter has been filed on behalf of the temple reiterating the submissions made by the respondent No.4. 11. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit and would submit that the petitioners predecessors are having ownership over the subject lands and the same is shown in basic document of the Sethwar (1951-52), Khasra Pahani 1954-55 and in Pahanies from 1951 to 1972 Pattedar column & Possession Column, and from 1972 till date in the possession column. While reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, would further submit that in the year 1962 basing on the faisala patti, the Revenue Authorities basing on the Mumnthakab statement proposed to change the Revenue Records of schedule lands from the petitioners and their father’s names to the temple without being any law, without issuing any notice, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s predecessors. It is further submitted that Khasra Pahani is basic document of conclusive proof to the title deed and pattedar pass books of the schedule lands and in support of their contentions had relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Another Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Others , (2015) 3 SCC 695 . 12. It is further submitted that the provisions of Endowments Act cannot override the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and its Rules 1975 and petitioners have already perfected title over agricultural lands of subject property by adverse possession prior to 26-01-1967. It is further submitted that as per Section 87 of the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowment concerned has to enquire into the dispute of the property and decide the same under Section 76 of the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 however, the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned proceedings in the year 2003 granting the ORC in the name of the temple i.e., Sri Deval Balaji (Venkateshwara Swamy) of Malkapur village in spite of petitioners making objections on 12.09.2004. SUBMISSIONS: 13. SUBMISSIONS: 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and their predecessors are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject lands over a period of 100 years which stood on the names of predecessors of petitioners in the revenue records like Khasra Pahani and pattedar pass books, but the Village Administrative Officer without following due procedure of law, without jurisdiction, without issuing any notice to the predecessors of the petitioners conducted enquiry and submitted Report to the Mandal Revenue Officer of Chevella Mandal on 15.03.1999 who in turn on the same day without conducting any enquiry forwarded the Preliminary Enquiry report on 15.03.1999, which is against the rule of law and in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar, Ali Sarkar , AIR 1952 SC 75 which was reiterated by the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DTC Vs. Mazdoor Union , AIR 1991 SC 101 . Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that based on the Mandal Revenue Officer report dated 15.03.1999, the petitioners have made their objections through their counsel on 29.04.2000 to the 2 nd respondent by stating that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the subject agriculture lands and the Muntakab Statement is not a base document to issue ORC to the temple. He would further submit that “Khasra Pahani” is the basic record-of-rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55 under Regulation 4 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Record-of-Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F and as per Regulation 13 any entry in the said record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved and the said regulation of 1358 F was in vogue till it was repealed by the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.08.1978 and would further submit that in the 2 nd Edition (1977) of The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha AIyar (at p1053) “Khasra” is described as follows: “Khasra_Khasra is a register recording the incidents of tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose of deed of title, when there is no other title deed” 14. Khasra would serve the purpose of deed of title, when there is no other title deed” 14. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments had placed the copy of the Notification issued by the Collector, dated 09.11.2022 of Endowments Department wherein the Endowments Lands in Rangareddy District were published for landed properties belonging to the Temples/Institutions and draws attention of this Court to Sl.No.110 at Page No.26 wherein the details of Rangareddy District has been published and the name of the institution is recorded as Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chevella (V&M) and classification of the institution is shown under 6 (b) and survey numbers are recorded under Section 43 of the Endowments Act. A copy of the list of prohibited lands which are recorded in the Dharani Web Portal (Integrated Land Records Management System) of Government of Telangana downloaded on 27.02.2025 is also placed before this Court, and on a perusal of the same, it reveals that the subject lands have been entered as the prohibited lands as endowment lands. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS: 15. The Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella/respondent No.2 had granted ORC based on the report of Village Administrative Officer, Malkapur village dated 15.03.1999 and Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella Mandal vide Letter No.B/1255/99 dated 15.03.1999. The case was taken on record and notices were issued on 27.03.1999 to all the concerned and no objections were received during the course of hearing as such the case was reserved for orders. The respondent No.2 on the basis of entries in the pahanies for the year 1973-74 furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella Mandal in his preliminary report on the subject lands, had classified the said lands as Dastagarda Inam land which stood in the name of Deval Balaji Inamdar(s) and in the occupant column the names of Sri 1. Venkat Reddy, 2. Sri Chandra Reddy, 3. Sri Ram Reddy are shown and after examining the records and referring to the material available, Acts and Rules in force found that Sri Deval Balaji (Venkateshwara Swamy) is in possession and as per pahani for the year 1954-55 to 1997-98, the deity was recorded as pattedar. Venkat Reddy, 2. Sri Chandra Reddy, 3. Sri Ram Reddy are shown and after examining the records and referring to the material available, Acts and Rules in force found that Sri Deval Balaji (Venkateshwara Swamy) is in possession and as per pahani for the year 1954-55 to 1997-98, the deity was recorded as pattedar. In view of the same, the ORC was issued under Section 4 of A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by issuing Form-III in favour of the said temple i.e., Sri Deval Balaji (Venkateshwara Swamy) of Malkapur village and premium amount was fixed for Rs.2,956/- and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rangareddy District was directed to remit the premium amount under relevant heads. Thereafter, the petitioners therein have carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District by way of appeal under Section 24 of A.P.(T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The Joint Collector/respondent No.1 observed that the said appeal was preferred against the exparte order dated 27.10.2003 passed in case No.L/708/1999 and the case was taken up and notices were issued to both the parties who were represented by their respective counsels. The respondent No.1 observed that the subject lands were entered in the Munthakab in File No.A6/6195/1958 which was prepared after enquiry and the same was not challenged by any one much less the appellants there in and therefore, the Munthakab was recorded as final and is binding on the parties. It is further observed that once the lands have been entered in the Endowment Register, it is deemed to be temple properties unless the said entries have been set-aside by the competent authority. Therefore, the subject land covered under the impugned order belongs to Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple and the temple name has been recorded as Inamdar right from 1954-55 and the lands held by religious charitable institutions, ORC should be granted to the institutions only. Further, the case was called from time to time, finally called on 12.05.2006, in the presence of appellants and after perusal of the material available on record, the following order was passed: “ORDER: This appeal has been filed by Sri Narayana Reddy and (14) others challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in L/708/1999, dt.27.10.2003. Further, the case was called from time to time, finally called on 12.05.2006, in the presence of appellants and after perusal of the material available on record, the following order was passed: “ORDER: This appeal has been filed by Sri Narayana Reddy and (14) others challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in L/708/1999, dt.27.10.2003. In the impugned orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer declared certain lands as endowment lands and granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of Deval Balaji at Malkapur Village of Chevella mandal. The main contention of the appellants is that the scheduled properties are patta lands of their ancestors and therefore the inam abolition enquiry cannot be conducted in respect of schedule lands. The perusal of the Sethwar copy available on records shows clearly that the lands are mentioned Munthakhab lands which means Inam lands and therefore it will attracts the possession of Inam Abolition Act. Further, the Inam Abolition Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act with regard to the recording of cultivators as Pattedars will not apply to lands belonging to religious and charitable lands. In this case, the munthakab No.A6/6095/58 was issued long back wherein the said lands are already recorded as endowment lands as submitted by the Manager, Endowment Department. The extracts of certain Pahanies which are available on records show that in 1970-71, Inamdar column shows the name of Sri Purshothama Chary and Deval balaji which clearly indicates that the lands are inam lands in favour of Balaji Deval (Temple). During the course of the case, the appellant was asked to produce certain copies of Pahani extracts for 1970-71 to 1978-79. He failed to file any certified copies of Pahanies for crucial period. In view of the above discussions, it can be concluded that the said lands are Temple Inam lands and consequently the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.” 16. He failed to file any certified copies of Pahanies for crucial period. In view of the above discussions, it can be concluded that the said lands are Temple Inam lands and consequently the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.” 16. On a perusal of the Munthakab issued from the Office of the Nizamath Atiyath, Government of A.P.Hyderabad which is filed by petitioners in the material papers wherein reference was made to the Atiyath Issuance of Munthakhab No.9/56 of 1958 A.D for Taluka Shahabad District, Hyderabad and it was recorded with the name of the person who has been included in Government papers or Inam Patrik but in the present claimant’s name, it is shown as “Temple Venkateshwar Balaji, Chevedla and the details of Maash are recorded as follows: “ DETAILS OF MAASH: Inam Land Village Malkapur bearing Sy.Nos.127,140,141,24,25,19,20,17,275,274,273,235,231,237,2 38,230,232,233,234,236 and 289 : admeasuring 80 acres 23 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.104-1-0 Inam Land Village Kumrah: Sy.No.39 admeasuring 35 guntas of Rev. Cess of Rs.13/-.” 17. It was observed that the condition for grant was for rendering service to the Temple. The said orders were passed on an application made by Sri Sainappa Chari and Sri Parshutamma Chari along with testimonials granted by Deshmukhs of Narkhoda for the years 1177 Fasli, 1158 Fasli and 1292 Fasli in respect of Inam lands mentioned in Col.6 of the Muntakhab for issuance of Mash in the name of Temple Bajali, Chevella and as per the relevant rules it was observed that Inam lands situated at village Malkapur admeasuring 80 acres 23 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.104.06 NP and village Kumrah admeasuring 35 guntas of revenue cess of Rs.15/- are reinstated in the name of Temple Venkateshwar Bajali, Chevedla and the re-instatement would be subject to Inam Abolition Act. The Muntakhab order dated 02.05.1958 was communicated to the Collector, Hyderabad District for compliance and to further intimate the result of execution for taking entry into office record. 18. The Muntakhab order dated 02.05.1958 was communicated to the Collector, Hyderabad District for compliance and to further intimate the result of execution for taking entry into office record. 18. Further, the respondent No.4 had informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division by letter dated 09.06.1999 referring to letter of the Founder Trustee of the subject temple dated 31.05.1999 wherein it was submitted that the subject temple had been published under Section 6 (ii) of Endowments Act 30/87 as endowed with vast landed property situated at Chevella, Ibrahimpatnam, Mudimyala, Pedda mangalaram, Shabad, Ramarajupuram, Dhobipet, Gundala, Tadlapally, Doswada, Malkapur villages etc and falls under the jurisdiction of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division. It is submitted that under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act (Amended Vide Act 19/94), where the temple lands are concerned such occupancy rights can be granted only in favour of Deity and not on individuals and requested to grant ORC in respect of the lands in question in favour of Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chevella. Further, a letter was given on the similar lines on 23.09.2001. 19. The petitioners in the reply affidavit had filed the copies of Khasra Pahani issued by the respondent authorities for the year 1954-55 and the Sethwar issued by the respondent authorities for the year 1951-52. Though petitioners have filed copies of Khasra for the year 1954-55 and Sethwar for the year 1951-52, the petitioners have not filed any proof regarding their status and basis of claim. The revenue records show the names of Sri Venkat Reddy, Sri Chandra Reddy and Sri Ram Reddy in the Khasra pahai and Sethwar. The petitioners have filed copy of Adangal/Pahani of the pattedar. In the Bandobasthu Record for the year 1962-63 of Malkapur village, for Sy.Nos.13 to 22 and 25 to 29, the name of the account holders apart from Sri Venkat Reddy, Sri Chandra Reddy, Sri Ram Reddy, the name of Purushotham Chari is shown and in the possession column, the name of Deval Balaji is shown. In the pahani filed for the year 1971-72 for Sy.Nos.19 to 22, 13 to 18 and 31, the name of the account holders apart from Sri Purushotham Chari name of one Srinivas is also shown and in the possession column, the name of Deval Balaji is shown. In the pahani filed for the year 1971-72 for Sy.Nos.19 to 22, 13 to 18 and 31, the name of the account holders apart from Sri Purushotham Chari name of one Srinivas is also shown and in the possession column, the name of Deval Balaji is shown. Further, for the very same pahani filed for the year 1971-72 for Sy.Nos.10 to 12, 24, 25 to 29, 33, 273, 274, 275, 233, 238, 230 to 232, the name of the account holder is shown as Sri Purushotham Chari and in the possession column name of Deval Balaji is shown with Katha No.60. Further, for the pahani filed for the year 1972-73 for Sy.Nos.230 to 238 and 273 to 275, the name of the account holder is shown as Sri Purushotham Chari and in the possession column name of Deval Balaji is shown with Katha No.60. Further, for the pahani filed for the year 1974-75 for Sy.Nos.19 to 22, the name of the account holders apart from Sri Purushotham Chari, name of one Srinivas is also shown and in the possession column name of Deval Balaji is shown with Katha No.60. Subsequently, as per the Pahani patrika filed by the petitioners for the year 1984-85 for Sy.Nos.238, 274 to 276 the name of the account holders apart from Sri Purushotham Chari name of one Srinivas is also shown and in the occupants column names of Sheri Dharma Reddy, Kista Reddy, Penta Reddy are shown. Further, in the pahanies filed for the years 1979-80, 1984-85, 1994-95, 1999-2000, 2004-05, 2009-10, 2012-13 and till date the name of the Sri Purushothama Chari is shown in the pattedar column and the nature of land is shown as “Deval Inam”. On a perusal of the appeal filed by the petitioners in Case No.F1/6183/2004, no copy of mutation proceedings have been filed along with appeal. 20. In the counter filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, it is contended that the petitioners/appellants have not filed any objections before the Tribunal and referring to the entries made in Munthakab in File No.A6/6195/58, which was prepared after enquiry, the same was also not challenged by any one much less the appellants therein and therefore, the Munthakab is final and binding on the parties and the temple has been recorded as Inamdar right from 1954-55. It is further contended that the appellants are neither the tenants nor protected tenants and not in the physical possession of the schedule lands and much more the tenancy Act does not apply to the land vested with the institute and more so Genealogical tree shown by the appellants, the respondents were not aware. 21. On a careful perusal of the Adangal/Pattedar Passbooks issued by the Thahsildar from the year 2017 onwards in all the pattedar pass books for Sy.Nos.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 366/a, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 273, 274, 275, the pattedar name is shown as Sri Purushothama Chary – Nil with same katha No.629 however, in the names of the enjoyers column, names of Sri Sheri Penta Reddy, Sheri Krishna Reddy, Sheri Vittal Reddy, Sheri Balvanth Reddy were shown. However, no mutation proceedings have been filed by the petitioners in their favour either before respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 to substantiate their status with the names shown in the enjoyers column. 22. The petitioners were aware that the temple lands were being continued in the revenue records and had never questioned all through. Moreover, the Notification issued by the Collector, Endowment Department dated 09.11.2022 in which in page 26 at Sl.No.110 notified that the subject landed properties belongs to temples/institution and the was not challenged by the petitioners. In fact, an application dated 09.06.1999 was made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, and also a letter of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department dated 23.03.2001 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, requesting for issuance of ORC in respect of the land at Malkapur Village, Chevella Mandal belonging to Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Chevella, thereafter the Village Administrative Officer, Malkapoor village has forwarded the report and Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkapur Mandal had conducted enquiry and submitted preliminary report. The said orders are challenged by the appellants in the year 2004 and the impugned ordered were passed by the respondent No.1 in the year 2006. The petitioners knowingly well that the temple name is being continued in the revenue records filed objection petition but never questioned the revenue proceedings all through. The said orders are challenged by the appellants in the year 2004 and the impugned ordered were passed by the respondent No.1 in the year 2006. The petitioners knowingly well that the temple name is being continued in the revenue records filed objection petition but never questioned the revenue proceedings all through. That apart, till 2017 the name of Sri Purushothama Chary is recorded as pattedar and the lands were continued to be shown as (Deval Inam i.e., Endowment Lands). 23. As regards, the Khasra entries, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior Vs. Puran Singh @ Puran Chand and Others , 2014 (6) ALD 28 (SC) held that “Khasra entries are relevant only for purposes of paying land revenue and has nothing to do with ownership.” . The relevant paragraph is extracted as under for reference: “30. The High Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by simply placing reliance upon Khasaras entries even without properly appreciating the settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership”. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & another Vs. D. Narsing Rao & others , (2015) 3 SCC 695 held as under: “Consequent to the merger of Hyderabad State with India in 1948 the Jagirs were abolished by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli. “Khasra Pahani” is the basic record-of-rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55. It was gazette under Regulation 4 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Record- of-Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F. As per Regulation 13 any entry in the said record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The said regulation of 1358 F was in vogue till it was repealed by the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.08.1978. In the 2 nd Edn. (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (at p.1053) “Khassra” is described as follows: “Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure and is a historical record. In the 2 nd Edn. (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (at p.1053) “Khassra” is described as follows: “Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed”. 25. On a careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & another (cited supra) makes it clear that the entries in Khasra would serve as a deed of title when there is no other title deed but in the case on hand, the respondent No.2 had issued the ORC under Section 4 of the A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in Form-III, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the said ORC is a statutory grant and serves as a document of Title. 26. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners predecessors have never challenged the Munthakab issued from the Office of Nizamath Atiyath, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad where a condition of grant was given for rendering service to the temple and final orders were passed re-instating the name of the temple i.e., Venkateshwara Balaji, Chevella vide proceedings dated 02.05.1958 and subsequently the name of the temple was included in the revenue records and continued. The predecessors of petitioners earlier and the petitioners at a later stage have not questioned the said proceedings, but, had only filed objections when the temple had made an application dated 31.05.1999 for grant of ORC in respect of the Inam lands held by the Balaji Temple. When the predecessors of the petitioners have not challenged the inclusion of the subject lands in the revenue records in the name of the temple, the petitioners at this point of time have no locus-standi to claim the subject lands. 27. It is seen that the petitioners are disputing the very title and possession of the subject property whereas ORC was issued under Section 4 A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in favour of the temple, which is confirmed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 22.09.2006, whereas both the petitioners and respondent No.4 are claiming rights over the subject property. It is seen that the petitioners are disputing the very title and possession of the subject property whereas ORC was issued under Section 4 A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in favour of the temple, which is confirmed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 22.09.2006, whereas both the petitioners and respondent No.4 are claiming rights over the subject property. As there are serious disputes with regard to the title and possession of the subject property, the petitioners ought to have approached the Endowments Tribunal as per the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act No.30 of 1987’) for adjudicating their rights over the subject property and since there are disputed question of facts, the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shubhas Jain V. Rajeshwari Shivam , 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 562 and Radha Krishan Industries V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771 . 28. Further, on a perusal of the material available on record, orders, and by virtue of the continuance of Munthakab issued by the Office of Nizamath Atiyath, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad which was carried out by the revenue department and the said fact was also entered into the revenue records, by virtue of the orders passed by the respondent No.2 wherein ORC was issued to the temple and the same has been confirmed by the respondent No.1, and later the subject lands are notified vide District Collector’s Gazette dated 09.11.2022 as landed properties belonging to the temples/institutions, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 22.09.2006 does not warrant any interference and no mandamus can be issued at this point of time. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails being devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.