ORDER : (K. SARATH, J.) Since both these writ petitions are filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.3- Joint Collector in Revision Case No.D1/87/205 dated 16.02.2019, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9064 of 2019, the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-10 gts in Sy.No.8/A and 8/AA through registered sale deed document No.683/1997 dated 12.06.1997, the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-06 gts in Sy.No.126 through registered sale deed document No.638/1995 dated 28.03.1995, Ac.2-04 gts in Sy.No.122 and Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.123 through registered sale deed document No.637/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioner No.3 has purchased the land admeasuring to a total extent of Ac.15.26 gts in Sy.No.125 through registered sale deed document No.639/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioners have purchased the properties from the respondent No.7 herein i.e, Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary, and the said lands are situated in Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour and since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands for more than 30 years. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the grandfather of the petitoner No.1 and great grandfather of the petitoner Nos.2 to 5 i.e. late Sayanna was the protected tenant of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.26 gts in Sy.No.142 situated at Kusumurthy Village and a certificate of ownership was issued by the competent authority under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 vide File No.E/1513/75. After the death of said Sayanna, his sons had inherited the said property and thereafter the petitioners being legal heirs have inherited the same and through family arrangement, they have divided the said land and obtained pattadar passbooks and they have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares of land. 5. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.9064 of 2019 is taken as a lead case. 6. 5. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.9064 of 2019 is taken as a lead case. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the revenue records, one Kista Chary and his successors were the pattadars and owners of the suit schedule land and the same was purchased by the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet in respect of suit schedule properties and other lands initiated land reforms proceedings against the successors of said Kista Chary and held that the declarant holds the land admeasuring to an extent of 1.5386 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date in C.C.No.1412 of 1975 dated 09.06.1976. The respondent authorities have also granted pattas to some individuals in respect of said excess land of the legal heirs of late Kista Chary, however, the possession remained with the legal heirs of late Kista Chary. He further submits that against the said proceedings dated 09.06.1976, the two widows of late Kista Chary filed Land Reforms Appeal No.14 of 1982 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubagar and the same was allowed on 02.12.1983 holding that the appellants therein have to be treated as separate individuals and they were entitled to separate holding each and the said Judgment has became final. In view of the said Judgment, the pattas granted in favour of some individuals in respect of the excess land as per the proceedings dated 09.06.1976 were cancelled by the revenue authorities. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of two widows of Kista Chary and the legal heirs of late Kista Chary were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands as pattadars and the petitioners have purchased the suit schedule land from Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary on different dates. While it being so, the respondent No.6-Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy Uttaradi Matt claiming to be a Charitable institution has filed a revision petition on 16.10.2015 before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act, 1971’) stating that the suit schedule lands are service inam lands which are inalienable and the Matt has been recorded as Inamdar and alleged that the said Kista Chary was a poojari of the said institution. 8. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.6 without there being any right, title and interest has filed revision before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 without any material as Inamdar or owner or possessor of the lands purchased by the petitioners at any point of time and never claimed any right for more than six and half decades. He further submits that the respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry and without obtaining any report from the respondent No.5 passed the impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits after filing this writ petition, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioners have obtained a copy of order in Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 dated 07.12.2013 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, wherein it clearly discloses that the issue involved in the said case was in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.213, 214, 215, 215/Paiki, 212 and 292 of Kolpur Village of Maganoor Mandal, whereas the lands in the impugned order are in respect of Sy.Nos.1,8,122, 123, 125, 126 and 142 situated at Kusumurthy Village of Krishna Mandal and therefore, the respondent No.3 has erroneously basing on the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 dated 07.12.2013 passed impugned orders which has no relevance or bearing on the subject lands. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that even as per the impugned order, said Uttaradi Matt was neither Inamdar nor possessor of the subject lands and the respondent No.6 was never registered as an occupant of the subject lands. He further submits that the documents produced by the petitioners clearly establish that the petitioners and their predecessors are having title and possession over the subject lands and the respondent No.6 is neither having title nor possession over the subject lands and no document is produced before the respondent No.3 or before this Court that the schedule land belongs to Endowment Institution as Inamdar and also the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 have no application to the present case and in view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , (1978)1 SCC 405 2. Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District vs. D. Narsing Rao , [ (2015) 3 SCC 695 ] 3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur Chenai , (2005) 7 SCC 627 4. Susheela Vs. A. Gopal Reddy , (2015) 4 ALD 248 . 5. Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy vs. Joint Collector , (2009) 4 ALT 593 . 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the counter submits that as per the revenue records, the subject lands were classified as Khidmath Inam (Seva Inam) and Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inamdar and Kista Chary as Poojari of the institution and the subject lands are held in the name of charitable institution and no one will get ownership rights over the subject lands except the institution. He submits that as per Section 3(1) of Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, all the Inams were abolished and vest in the State w.e.f. 20.07.1955 and no occupant will get any right over the inam land unless re-grant is made under Section 4(i) of the said Act and any sale transactions in respect of inam land without grant of ORC are not valid and there is no right over the suit lands and Kista Chary being poojari has no alienable rights as the subject lands belonged to Charitable Institution of Uttaradi Mutt. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Telangana Abolition of Inam Act, 1955, all rights, title and interest vest in inamdar are vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and as per the revenue records, the subject lands are in the name of the respondent No.6 and as per Section 4(1) of the Inams Act, the institution alone is entitled for ownership rights over the subject lands and late Kista Chary was only a Poojari to perform pooja and no ownership rights will accrue to him by virtue of mere possession over the subject lands. He further submits that after considering all the aspects, the respondent No.3 has set aside the ORC granted over the lands situated at Kolpur Village as Uttaradi Matt is religious institution vide proceedings No.F2/23/2011 dated 07.12.2013 and the Certificate issued under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 , is not valid and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter averments submits that the subject lands are Inam lands belonging to the charitable institution and the respondent No.6 has right over the same. He submits that said Kista Chary was Poojari performing his duties in the respondent No.6 institution and he was cultivating the same for the purpose of maintaining the institution and he has no right over the subject lands and as such the declaration alleged to have been filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal is null and void. He further submits that the petitioners have not filed any document to show that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of the widows of late Kista Chary. He further submits that the respondent No.6 has right, title and possession over the subject property and as such it has rightly preferred the revision and the respondent No.3 after examining the facts and appreciating the documents has passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. State of A.P. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 . 2. Thota Kistaiah Vs. Nikode Bheemera, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 536. 3. N. Ramakrishna vs. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 177. 4. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited, (2009) 11 SCC 18 5. K.G.Krishna Murthy Vs. The Joint Collector , (2008) 1 ALD 836 ] 16. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that in both the writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of the respondent No.3 dated 16.02.2019 in ROR revision filed under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. K.G.Krishna Murthy Vs. The Joint Collector , (2008) 1 ALD 836 ] 16. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that in both the writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of the respondent No.3 dated 16.02.2019 in ROR revision filed under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. The petitioners herein have purchased the properties through the registered documents for different extents on different dates respectively in Sy.Nos.1,8,122, 123,125 and 126 situated at Kusumurthy Village of Krishna Mandal, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. After their purchase, the revenue authorities have mutated the names of the petitioners in respect of their purchased lands by issuing mutation proceedings on different dates. The petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 are legal heirs of the protected tenant for the lands situated in Sy.No.142 at Kusumurthy Village. While it being so, the respondent No.6 filed revision before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971 for cancellation of mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners for the suit schedule properties and stated that the lands are classified as service inam lands and one Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inamdar and Sri Kista Chary S/o.Raghavendra Chary stated to have performing as Poojari to the said institution and the suit schedule lands are meant for maintenance of the said institution. During his life time, late Kista Chary stated to have cultivated the suit schedule lands and maintained the institution and after his demise, one Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary S/o. Kista Chary has been brought on record as pattadar and possessor of the subject lands without any valid orders from the competent authority. The said Doshi Ravindra Chary without any power sold away the suit schedule lands to the petitioners and stated that as per the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the transactions between the said Doshi Ravindra Chary and the petitioners are null and void and no effect would be given for such registration. 17. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of the suit schedule properties by the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 through registered documents and also the competent authority has mutated their names sand issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in different proceedings in the year, 1997. 17. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of the suit schedule properties by the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 through registered documents and also the competent authority has mutated their names sand issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in different proceedings in the year, 1997. The petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 are legal heirs of Sri Sayanna in whose favour the Certificate under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 was issued for the land situated in Sy.No.142 in proceedings No.E/1513/1975. 18. The petitioners herein contended that the respondent No.6 was never recorded as owner of the property on behalf of Uttaradi Matt and there is no record in respect of the existence of Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy during the year, 1954 or immediate preceding period. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 stating that late Kista Chary was only priest to Uttaradi Matt and the institution only is entitled to be recorded as an occupant against the subject lands and also the ORC granted in respect of the said lands in favour of late Kista Chary in File No.A/4079/93 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet has been set aside in Inam Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. But, the schedule property in Inam Appeal is in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.213, 214, 215, 215/Paiki, 212 and 292 situated at Kolpur Village of Maganoor Mandal. 19. The main contention of the respondent No.6 is that the schedule lands are classified as ‘Khidmath Inam, Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inamdar and Sri Kista Chary as Poojari (priest) to the institution, but the respondent No.6 has not filed any document to show that Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was the Inamdar or late Kista Charry as Poojari of the respondent No.6 institution. 20. The respondents in their counters in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 have not denied the Certificate of Ownership issued under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 in favour of late Sayanna. The respondent No.3 without discussing the rights of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in Sy.No.142 passed impugned order. 21. The respondent No.3, without taking into account of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and also the Certificate of Ownership under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 , passed the impugned order. The respondent No.3 without discussing the rights of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in Sy.No.142 passed impugned order. 21. The respondent No.3, without taking into account of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and also the Certificate of Ownership under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 , passed the impugned order. The respondent No.3 cannot nullify the rights of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 granted under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 and also rights of vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 were acquired through Land Reforms Proceedings in the ROR revision proceedings. 22. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to revisional powers under Section 9 of the ROR Act must be exercised within reasonable time as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joint Collector’s case (supra 2) and unreported Judgment of this Court in Susheela’s case (supra 4) apply to the instant case. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Joint Collector’s case (supra 2) as under: “22. The High Court was of the view that the entries in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 reflected the names of the predecessors-in-title of the writ-petitioners although according to the Government the said entries were made fraudulently by the then Patwari of the village. The High Court further held that since the entries showing ownership and possession of the writ-petitioners had continued unchallenged for nearly 40 years before the Government issued G.O.M.s 850 Rev. (Asn.III) Dept. dated 24-9-1991 the Government was not justified in making any allotment in disregard of the same. The High Court also took the view that the proposed correction of the alleged fraudulent entries nearly 50 years after the entries were first made was also legally impermissible even when the revisional power being invoked to do so did not prescribe any period of limitation. The High Court recorded a finding that the predecessors-in-title of the writ- petitioners had registered sale-deeds in their favour and that the State Government or its officers had not denied that the writ-petitioners or their predecessors-in- title had remained in possession of the subject land. The High Court held that exercise of revisional powers, even where no period of limitation is prescribed, must be within a reasonable period. 32. The High Court held that exercise of revisional powers, even where no period of limitation is prescribed, must be within a reasonable period. 32. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31- 12-2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed. In the instant case also, the mutation has taken place in favour of the vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 after disposal of appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the year, 1983 and the Certificate issued under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 in favour of late Sayanna, who is ancestor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in the year, 1975. In view of the same, the above finding is squarely apply to the instant case. 23. In view of the same, the above finding is squarely apply to the instant case. 23. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgments in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (supra 1) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited’s case (supra 3), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise and the counters filed by the respondents cannot be taken into account. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are apply to the instant case as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is only basing on the orders in the Inam Appeal Case No.F/23/2011 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubagar, but in the counter they have taken other stand and the same cannot be taken into account. 24. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents in State of A.P’s case (supra 6), Thotta Kistaiah’s case (supra 7), N. Ramakrishna’s case (supra 8), Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)’s case (supra 9) and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy’s case (supra 10) are not pertaining to the ROR Act, 1971 and the same are pertaining to Abolition of Inams Act. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to file any document to show that the respondent No.6-Uttaradi Matt is Inamdar of the suit schedule property. The impugned order was passed only basing on Inam Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, which does not belongs to the suit schedule properties. In view of the same, the said Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 are not apply to the instant case as the facts are different from the instant case and those Judgments cannot be taken into account. 25. At the time of admission on 19.12.2019, this Court called for the records and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet appeared before this Court and produced the records. 25. At the time of admission on 19.12.2019, this Court called for the records and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet appeared before this Court and produced the records. After verifying the records, this Court feels that “the lands in survey numbers in File No.A/4079/93 does not concerned with the lands in survey numbers in the present issue arises and held that the Joint Collector has allowed the revision on the assumption that the earlier Occupancy Right Certificate granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was set aside by the Joint Collector in the above proceedings. Therefore, prima facie, the view taken by the Joint Collector appears to be not valid”. Thereafter, the official respondents and the respondent No.6 have filed their counters but, they have failed to file any documents along with their counters to show that the respondent No.6 was Inamdar of the suit schedule lands and said Kista Chary was poojari of the said institution. 26. The official respondents in their counter have not given any reply with regard to the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 09.06.1976 and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar dated 02.12.1983. As per the Land Reforms Proceedings, the suit schedule properties are subject matters in C.C.No.1412/1975 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet, dated 09.06.1976 and also before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar in L.R.A.No.14 of 1982 dated 02.12.1983. The competent authorities have taken the suit schedule land as ceiling surplus land and conducted enquiry under Land Reforms Proceedings and declared that the land belongs to the widows of late Krista Chary i.e., Smt Venkamma and Laxmibai. In the Land Reforms Tribunal case, the vendor of the petitioners i.e., Doshi Ravindra Chary S/o. Kista Chary was shown as son of Laxmibai, now the respondents cannot deny the status of Doshi Ravindra Chary, the respondent No.7 herein, as adopted son of late Kista Chary. 27. After disposal of appeal by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.14 of 1982, the revenue authorities have mutated the records in favour of the vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 and thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 have purchased the suit schedule land through registered documents and their names were also mutated in the revenue records in the year, 1997. The competent authority has issued Certificate under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 , in favour of late Sayanna in proceedings No.E/1513/1975 for the land in Sy.No.142 and mutated the records. 28. After mutation of records, after lapse of 18 years in respect of suit schedule lands in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 and after lapse of 40 years in respect of suit schedule lands in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the respondent No.6 filed ROR revision before the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order stating that the property is inam land and Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was Inamdar and late Kista Chary as Poojari to the said Uttadadi matt without any record and also relied on the orders in Inam Appeal Case No.F/23/2011. But the subject property in the said Inam Appeal is not pertaining to the suit schedule property and the same belongs to different village. In view of the same, the order passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside on the ground that without any valid documents and without basing on the relevant proceedings and only basing on mere presumptions and assumptions passed the impugned order. 29. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting the impugned order in Revision Case No.D1/87/205 dated 16.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 and directed the respondent authorities to restore the entries in the revenue records as per mutation in favour of the petitioners. No order as to costs. 30. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.