ORDER : E.V. Venugopal, J. The present batch of writ petition Nos.21537, 21622, 21649, 21560, 21624, 21626, 21628, 21629, 21630, 21631, 21632, 21633, 21634, 21676, 21679, 21679, 21682, 21694, 21696, 21696, 21914, 21828, 21942 and 22016 of 2024 are filed challenging the orders of the respondent No.3 i.e., Additional Collector (Revenue) dated 22.07.2024 in Appeal Nos.F1/124/2024, F1/646/2024 and F1/647/2024 wherein and whereby the Additional Collector set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division granting ORC in favour of the unofficial respondents in respect of the lands situated in various survey numbers of Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. 2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth and Sri G.Shiva Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rohit Pogula and Sri V.Hariharan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Srikanth Hariharan learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. 3. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are identical and since the grievance of the petitioners is also one and the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.21537 of 2024 will be discussed to adjudicate the cause. 4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that originally respondent Nos.20 to 31 were granted ORC in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.46 to 66 and 78 to 87 of different extents situated in Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District (the subject properties) vide ORC Proceedings in File No.H/5652/3-9 & 11 & 12 of 1998, dated 07.10.2023 by the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur. The said ORCs were granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division, Medak District, following due enquiry, in adherence to the binding directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.31641 of 2012 and 23622 of 2015, as well as instructions issued by the CCLA directing issuance of ORCs. The said ORCs were granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division, Medak District, following due enquiry, in adherence to the binding directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.31641 of 2012 and 23622 of 2015, as well as instructions issued by the CCLA directing issuance of ORCs. (a) The Revenue Divisional Officer, while granting ORCs to respondent Nos.20 to 31 herein observed that except these respondents, no one has filed Form-I application seeking ORC in respect of the applications’ scheduled lands and in view of the documentary evidence put-forth before him and the reasons and circumstances stated in the said applications and also in view of the affidavit filed by some of the claimants relinquishing their right over the subject property, considered the claim of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 herein, who are the vendors of the petitioners herein. (b) It is further asserted that subsequent to grant of ORCs, the respondent Nos.20 to 31 sold the subject properties to the petitioners for valid sale consideration and since then the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondent Nos.6 to 19 challenged the ORCs granted in favour of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 before the Additional Collector, Medak vide appeal Nos.F1/124/2024. (c) The respondent Nos.6 to 19 (appellants before the appellate authority) claimed ownership and continuous possession of subject lands contending that the same were granted to their ancestor Syed Ali and inherited by Chand Sahab and subsequent heirs. They obtained partial Occupancy Rights Certificates for land admeasuring Ac.64.22 guntas under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, with balance lands pending adjudication. They contend that though the High Court set aside the notification on 11.12.2023 vide order in WP No.14973 of 2007, the land was wrongly notified as Wakf property. They allege that the respondent Nos.20 to 31 were improperly granted ORCs without possession, due process, or adherence to interim orders and also not affording them an opportunity of being heard and violating natural justice. (d) The appellate authority i.e. the Additional Collector, Medak vide common order dated 22.07.2024 in Appeal Nos.F1/124/2024, F1/646 and F1/647/2024 allowed the appeals and set aside the ORCs granted in favour of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 and remanded the matter to the RDO for conducting denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. (d) The appellate authority i.e. the Additional Collector, Medak vide common order dated 22.07.2024 in Appeal Nos.F1/124/2024, F1/646 and F1/647/2024 allowed the appeals and set aside the ORCs granted in favour of the respondent Nos.20 to 31 and remanded the matter to the RDO for conducting denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. While ordering so, the Additional Collector declared the 3 rd party interest created in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the above subject land as null and void. (e) The appellate authority set aside the order of the RDO holding that the impugned order is vitiated by grave procedural and substantive infirmities, inasmuch as the R.D.O. issued only a general notification without serving mandatory Form-II notices on persons in occupation, thereby offending the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, entertained fragmented applications without any legally admissible proof of heirship or locus standi, failed to verify crucial records including ceiling declarations, field possession, tenancy status, and the District Collector’s proposals for de-notification of Wakf property, ignored material admissions in affidavits before the High Court and conducted a perfunctory and hurried enquiry by issuing WhatsApp notices granting no reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the order dated 05-10-2023 and the Occupancy Right Certificates issued in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.372-32 gts., in Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District, were set aside and remanded all appeals to the RDO-Inam Tribunal, Narsapur for de novo enquiry within three months. While ordering so, the Assistant Collector declared all the third-party interests created meanwhile as null and void. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein, who are the subsequent purchasers of the subject land, have filed the present writ petitions. 6. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are the lawful purchasers of the subject properties having purchased under registered sale deeds. They obtained digital pattadar passbooks. Since the date of purchase, they are in lawful possession, with their names duly reflected as pattadars in the public domain ROR records on the Dharani and Bhubharathi Portals. Despite this, the petitioners were not arrayed as parties before the Appellate Authority in the appeals filed by the appellants, who are the respondent Nos.6 to 19 herein, which were instituted only after issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and notwithstanding the execution of sale deeds in their favor. Despite this, the petitioners were not arrayed as parties before the Appellate Authority in the appeals filed by the appellants, who are the respondent Nos.6 to 19 herein, which were instituted only after issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and notwithstanding the execution of sale deeds in their favor. The predecessors of the petitioners had specifically admitted in their counters that subsequent sale deeds had been executed in favor of third parties, yet no notice was issued to the petitioners and respondent No.3, ignoring their statutory rights, passed the impugned orders setting aside the occupancy rights granted by respondent No.4 on 05-10-2023 and the ORCs issued on 07-10-2023, further declaring the petitioners’ registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks null and void. (a) It is the further contention that the petitioners lawfully acquired the properties by paying the full sale consideration, duly evidenced in the registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in the Dharani Portal, but neither the respondents nor respondent No.3 issued any notice, thus acting behind the back of the petitioners in clear violation of natural justice. The impugned orders exceed the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, encroach upon the provisions of the Registration Act, ROR Act and Transfer of Property Act and are contrary to settled legal principles, warranting indulgence of this Court to come to rescue the bonafide purchasers. (b) Respondents 6 to 19 herein, who neither filed ORC applications nor produced any evidence of possession, hold no locus to file appeal before the Assistant Collector. Their claims pertain solely to the petitioner’s vendors and their appeals were filed beyond the statutory period without any petition for condonation of delay. Notwithstanding this, respondent No.3 entertained their appeals, failed to issue notice to the petitioners, disregarded mandatory records, ignored the objections and written submissions of the petitioner’s vendors and erroneously recorded that notices were not served. In fact, the RDO had issued Form-II notices, sent RPAD notices, informed the parties via WhatsApp and secured their presence and signatures in the attendance register. (c) The impugned order, premised solely on assumptions and surmises, without examining the records of the lower authority, constitutes an impermissible annulment of registered sale deeds and ORC proceedings. Such action is wholly outside the scope of Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act. (c) The impugned order, premised solely on assumptions and surmises, without examining the records of the lower authority, constitutes an impermissible annulment of registered sale deeds and ORC proceedings. Such action is wholly outside the scope of Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act. (d) He lastly submitted that the appellate authority adjudicated the matter in haste without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be impleaded. As bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, the petitioners suffered prejudice and therefore sought remand of the matter to the appellate authority to implead them, hear them and pass appropriate orders. (e) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others , (2020) 9 SCC . He further contends that a statutory right, once vested, cannot be divested except in accordance with due process of law and that the ORCs granted after due enquiry, the registered sale deeds executed in their favour and the consequent mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks could not have been annulled by the appellate authority without impleading the petitioners or affording them an opportunity of hearing. (f) He further relied upon the common judgment dated 12.11.2021 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeal Nos.318 of 2021 and batch to substantiate their case. Stating thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, having been passed behind the back of bona fide purchasers and in excess of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Inams Act, is therefore vitiated by violation of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 7. Stating thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, having been passed behind the back of bona fide purchasers and in excess of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Inams Act, is therefore vitiated by violation of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Sri Dammapalati Srinivas, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and 12 in Writ Petitions No.21490 of 2024, 21629 of 2024, 21631 of 2024, 21678 of 2024, 21696 of 2024, 21622 of 2024 and 21828 of 2024 and respondent Nos.6 to 10 in WP Nos.21560 of 2024, 21624 of 2024, 21626 of 2024, 21628 of 2024, 21633 of 2024, 21676 of 2024 and respondent Nos.6 to 10 opposing the present writ petitions contends that the RDO’s order suffered from fundamental statutory defects including non-issuance of Form-II notices to all inamdars, failure to verify legal heirs, ceiling declarations, possession and relevant official records and having been passed in undue haste, was rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority, rendering the purchasers’ transactions void, pendente lite and non-est. It is further contended that the prayer of the petitioners to remand the matters to the Joint Collector would be futile as the matter already stands remanded to the RDO, that the purchasers lack locus and that the present writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 in view of the alternate statutory remedy of revision under Section 28 of the Inams Abolition Act. He relied on a short order dated 23.01.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1432 of 2016. 8. Sri V.Hariharan, learned senior counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.21679 of 2024 and 21682 of 2024 submits that the subject lands are Inam lands originally held by six inamdars, each entitled to an equal 1/6 th share. However, the RDO, despite acknowledging the existence of all six inamdars as reflected in Munthakab Tameel No.304 of 1302 Fasli and the succession proceedings dated 12.11.1958, granted ORCs only to the legal heirs of three inamdars viz.Syed Munvar Hussain, Syed Abdul Rahman and Syed Ali Sani while excluding the legal heirs of the remaining inamdars including Syed Kareem, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order, rightly recorded grave statutory and procedural defects in the RDO’s order, including non- issuance of mandatory Form-II notices to all interested parties, failure to establish legal heirship, non-verification of ceiling declarations, possession and existence of protected tenants, disregard of the District Collector’s letter dated 31.07.2004 and conduct of a hasty enquiry by issuing notice via WhatsApp one day prior to hearing and passing orders within a week, in clear violation of principles of natural justice. In view of these incurable defects, the Appellate Authority correctly set aside the RDO’s order under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. Consequently, the sale transactions relied upon by the writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers from ORC grantees are void and non-est, having been executed pendente lite on the strength of defective ORCs, conferring no valid title. The writ petitions are therefore not maintainable for want of locus and suppression of material facts, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 being legal, reasoned and warranting no interference under Article 226 and any remand to the Additional Collector would be futile as the matter already stands properly remitted to the RDO for de novo enquiry after due notice to all stakeholders. 9. Sri Vijay Hanuman Sing, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.6 to 19 in W.P.Nos.21537, 21630, 21632, 21634, 21686, 21814 and 21942 of 2024 submits that the plea of denial of opportunity to the writ petitioners in the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in File No. F1/124/2024 by the Additional Collector, Medak, is untenable, as Sri Shiva Kumar Goud, Advocate, who represented the vendors of the petitioners, had obtained the ORCs dated 07.10.2023 before the Primary Authority, continues to represent the petitioners before this Court. In-fact the respondents 6 to 19 themselves were denied opportunity by the Primary & Competent Authority, which granted ORCs to the petitioners’ vendors without considering their locus, in violation of principles of natural justice. (a) He further submits that registration does not confer title and that a quasi-judicial authority can act only within the confines of the statute. In-fact the respondents 6 to 19 themselves were denied opportunity by the Primary & Competent Authority, which granted ORCs to the petitioners’ vendors without considering their locus, in violation of principles of natural justice. (a) He further submits that registration does not confer title and that a quasi-judicial authority can act only within the confines of the statute. It is further submitted that the vendors of the petitioners are themselves pursuing W.P.No.22016 of 2024 and the allegation that they are not serious in prosecuting their claims is false, the present writ petitions having been filed only to delay consideration of the legitimate claims of Respondents 6 to 19 for grant of ORCs. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the matter be remanded to the Primary & Competent Authority for a lawful de novo enquiry and not to the Appellate Authority. 10. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy does not warrant adjudication on merits of rival title or entitlement at this stage, but turns squarely on procedural legality, jurisdictional limits and observance of principles of natural justice in the appellate proceedings culminating in the impugned order dated 22.07.2024. 11. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 05.10.2023/07.10.2023, the petitioners purchased the subject lands under registered sale deeds for valid consideration and that their names were mutated and reflected as pattadars in the statutory Record of Rights maintained on the Dharani/Bhu Bharathi portals. The appeals before the Additional Collector were instituted thereafter and admittedly with knowledge of the alienations. 12. The Appellate Authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, failed to implead the petitioners, who were admittedly persons having subsisting civil and statutory interests in the subject lands and proceeded to pass orders adversely affecting their rights. The declaration that the registered sale deeds, pattadar passbooks and mutations in favour of the petitioners are “null and void” was made without issuance of notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, in patent violation of the principles of audi alteram partem. Any order having civil consequences passed behind the back of affected parties is vitiated in law. 13. The declaration that the registered sale deeds, pattadar passbooks and mutations in favour of the petitioners are “null and void” was made without issuance of notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, in patent violation of the principles of audi alteram partem. Any order having civil consequences passed behind the back of affected parties is vitiated in law. 13. Further, this Court finds considerable force in the contention that the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the scope of Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act. The appellate power thereunder is confined to examining the legality or propriety of the order granting or refusing occupancy rights. It does not extend to annulling registered conveyances or extinguishing statutory entries made under the Registration Act, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, or the Transfer of Property Act. Such declarations fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil Courts. To that extent, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional overreach. 14. At the same time, this Court is unable to accede to the petitioners’ prayer for restoration of the ORCs as a fait accompli. The record discloses serious and substantial allegations raised by the appellants before the Appellate Authority touching upon non-issuance or improper service of Form-II notices, non-verification of heirship, ceiling declarations, possession, tenancy claims and the shares of all inamdars. These aspects go to the root of the statutory enquiry under the Inams Abolition Act and cannot be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction. 15. The claim of the implead petitioners was that upon grant of ORCs in favour of their vendors and by virtue of the subsequent purchases, valuable rights accrued to the petitioners through conveyance under registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. Therefore, the implead petitioners have a subsisting and real interest in the matter to present their case, as their vendors, having already sold the property, would have lesser interest in prosecuting the proceedings. Since it is contended that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to demonstrate their case as subsequent purchasers after grant of ORCs in favour of their vendors and instead of directing the appellate authority to undertake the exercise afresh, this Court notes that the matter is required to be decided by the primary authority. 16. Since it is contended that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to demonstrate their case as subsequent purchasers after grant of ORCs in favour of their vendors and instead of directing the appellate authority to undertake the exercise afresh, this Court notes that the matter is required to be decided by the primary authority. 16. It is alleged that the RDO issued notices through WhatsApp, which is not a mode recognized under law and that such notices were issued in a hurried manner without conducting the proceedings in accordance with law. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1578 { IA No. 63691 of 2025 in MA No. 2034 of 2022 in MA No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 16.7.2025} held that service of the notices through WhatsApp or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be considered or recognized as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognized and prescribed under the Cr.PC.1973/BNSS, 2023. 18. The Appellate Authority was, therefore, justified in principle in holding that the order of the RDO warranted interference and in directing a de-novo enquiry. However, the manner in which such power was exercised by nullifying third-party rights without notice and by recording findings affecting title cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to remand all these matters to the primary authority (RDO), granting an opportunity to the petitioners to get themselves impleaded and directing the RDO to conduct the proceedings afresh by way of a de-novo enquiry, after affording reasonable opportunity to all parties to this writ petition, in accordance with law and to adjudicate the matter as expeditiously as possible. 20. In that view of the matter, the interests of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned appellate order to the limited extent of its jurisdictional excess and violation of natural justice, while maintaining the remand to the Primary & Competent Authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, for a comprehensive de-novo enquiry in accordance with law. 21. 20. In that view of the matter, the interests of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned appellate order to the limited extent of its jurisdictional excess and violation of natural justice, while maintaining the remand to the Primary & Competent Authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, for a comprehensive de-novo enquiry in accordance with law. 21. In such circumstances the common order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Medak, in Appeal Nos.F1/124/2024, F1/646/2024 and F1/647/2024 is set aside to the extent it declares the registered sale deeds, pattadar passbooks, mutations and third-party interests of the writ petitioners as null and void because the Assistant Collector exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering so as the civil Court alone is the competent authority to act upon in this regard. However, as rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, since the RDO has not given sufficient opportunity to the parties, this Court remands the subject matters to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Inam Tribunal, Narsapur, to conduct a fresh de-novo enquiry strictly in accordance with the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder. The RDO shall implead and issue mandatory Form-II notices to all rival claimants, all alleged inamdars or their legal heirs, the writ petitioners as subsequent purchasers and any other persons found to be in possession or claiming interest and shall afford full and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders. The RDO shall examine and record findings on all relevant statutory aspects, including heirship, possession, ceiling declarations, tenancy claims, extent and shares of inamdars and relevant revenue records, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned appellate order or in this common order. The RDO shall dispose of all the matters as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of ninety (90) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. Until completion of the de-novo enquiry and passing of final orders by the RDO, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession and revenue entries shall be maintained. The entire exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of ninety (90) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to the costs. 24. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.