1. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N.Ranga Rao appearing for the petitioners; Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for the Endowments appearing for respondent No.3; Sri A.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

               ….may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise calling for the records of the Respondent No.1 in File No. F1/6183/2000 dated 28.3.2008 and declare the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of A.P. [Telengana Area] Abolition of Inams Act 1955 and declare the same as unenforceable by restoring the order of the Second Respondent in file No. L/859/96 dated 1.8.2000 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Factual background and timeline of events

3. The present writ petition, is instituted assailing the appellate order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The case pertains to the claim of ownership and occupancy rights over a substantial extent of land admeasuring Ac.15.23 gts. in Sy.No.384 of Attapur Village; that the subject land is a Dastugardhan Inam a personal grant and not an endowment in favour of any temple; that petitioners were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in three independent proceedings between the years 1987 and 1992 and that respondent No.1, in a single appellate order, illegally and mechanically cancelled all three ORCs without adhering to due procedure and without adverting to material documentary evidence supporting their title and possession.

4. The dispute arises out of proceedings under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter ‘Inams Act’). The 2nd respondent, acting as the Primary Authority under the Act, granted three separate ORCs in respect of different extents of land in Sy.No.384 of Attapur Village in favour of (i) Borra Danaiah for Ac.3.39 gts on 23.05.1987, (ii) G. Laxmaiah for Ac.4.00 gts on 24.01.1991, and (iii) Beetkuri Rajappa and others for Ac.7.24 gts on 13.03.1992.

5. An appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector questioning the ORC granted to G. Laxmaiah. By order dated 11.12.1995, the 1st respondent set aside the order of the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order of remand was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. By order dated 01.10.1996, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, specifically to determine the foundational issue as to whether the land constituted endowment property.

6. Pursuant to the said direction, the 2nd respondent undertook a comprehensive inquiry in File No.L/859/96. On consideration of the Sethwar, Pahanies, Vasool Baqui, and other primary revenue records, as well as the Muntaqab and the certificate issued by the Jagir Administration, the 2nd respondent, by a detailed order dated 01.08.2000, recorded the following findings:

               i. the Sethwar described the land as “Dastugardhan Inam”;

               ii. the Muntaqab issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments did not relate to Sy.No.384;

               iii. the Jagir Administration certified that Sy.No.384 did not stand in the records of the Endowments Department;

               iv. Pahanies from 1960-61 to 1973-74 consistently described the land as “Dastugardhan”; and

               v. a communication of the Endowments Department dated 29.05.1989 specifically stated that Sy.No.384 was not included in its books.

               On the strength of this documentary evidence, the 2nd respondent held that the land was not endowment property and consequently confirmed the three ORCs earlier granted.

7. The 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dated 28.03.2008, the 1st respondent reversed the findings of the 2nd respondent, placing reliance upon an ‘extract register of Inam’ produced by the Endowments Department and by reference to the Inams Act. The 1st respondent held that the land formed part of the properties of Sri Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Temple, Rambagh, and consequently concluded that no private individual could be registered as an occupant. On that basis, the ORCs earlier granted were set aside and declared null and void. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

8. To appreciate the facts in its proper perspective, it is apposite to set out the timeline of events as noted hereinabove:

               

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 28.03.2008 on multiple grounds. It is contended, at the outset, that the appellate order is cryptic, non-speaking and devoid of any reasoning, thereby disclosing a clear non-application of mind. According to the petitioners, 1st respondent has exercised appellate jurisdiction in a manner that is perverse and contrary to settled principles of administrative adjudication.

10. It is submitted that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.08.2000, which stood reversed, was itself passed pursuant to a specific remand made by this Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996, directing a fresh determination on the question whether the land in Sy.No.384 constitutes endowment property. The 2nd respondent, in faithful compliance with the remand directions, undertook an exhaustive inquiry and relied upon primary, contemporaneous and unimpeachable revenue records such as the Sethwar, Pahanies (1960–61 to 1973–74), Vasool Baqui, a certificate of the Jagir Administration, and even correspondence from the Endowments Department itself dated 29.05.1989, which uniformly described the land as ‘Dastugardhan Inam’ and specifically reflected that Sy.No.384 did not find place in the endowment or Inam registers maintained by the temple authorities.

11. It is urged that the 1st respondent has ignored the entire corpus of this primary evidence and proceeded solely on the basis of a belatedly produced ‘extract register of Inam’, without examining its authenticity, antiquity, reliability, or its consistency with long-standing statutory and revenue records. The petitioners argue that such reliance on a solitary and disputed document, without reconciling it with the established record, renders the order wholly unsustainable.

12. The petitioners further contend that the 1st respondent has misapplied the Inams Act, 1994, by presuming, rather than determining the jurisdictional condition precedent for its application, namely, that the land is ‘held by or for the benefit of a charitable or religious institution’. The petitioners submit that this constitutes a fundamental error of law, as the very question remanded for determination was whether the property was temple land.

13. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents which did not form part of the original record, ought not to be considered by this Court in determining whether the appellate authority has properly exercised jurisdiction.

14. It is thus submitted that an appellate order which does not engage with the findings of the primary authority, assigns no reasons, and fails to establish a rational nexus between the evidence and conclusion is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

15. The learned Government Pleader submit that the 1st respondent’s order is in strict conformity with the statutory mandate under the Inams Act; that once the Inam Register which is a statutory record maintained under the Inams Abolition regime reflects the land as belonging to a religious institution, no private individual can be recognised as an occupant, and any ORC granted earlier becomes void ab initio.

16. It is argued that the ‘extract register of Inam’ relied upon by the appellate authority is a statutorily maintained document carrying a presumption of correctness, which must prevail over revenue entries such as pahanies or other fiscal records not intended to determine title or tenure. According to the respondents, the appellate authority, being vested with full powers of re-appreciation, was entitled to prefer the Inam Register over other revenue material.

17. The respondents further submit that the description of the land as ‘Dastugardhan Inam’ does not ipso facto negate the possibility of its being a temple service Inam, and many service Inams historically granted for temple obligations are classified similarly. Respondents assert that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the land is not temple property, particularly when the statutory Inam extract indicates otherwise.

18. It is further contended that the Joint Collector has only corrected an erroneous and legally unsustainable order of the RDO, and that the impugned order is a valid and reasoned exercise of statutory appellate power.

19. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

Consideration by this Court

20. It is pertinent to note that the scope of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters involving quasi-judicial determinations is well-settled. While this Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum, it is nevertheless empowered and indeed obligated to interfere, where the impugned order suffers from perversity, non-consideration of relevant material, misapplication of statutory provisions, or absence of cogent and discernible reasoning, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

21. It is a settled law that an appellate authority discharging corrective jurisdiction must apply its mind to the findings of the primary authority and, if it proposes to overturn those findings, must assign clear, reasoned, and evidence-based grounds for doing so. A reversal of a detailed fact-finding order, without independent analysis demonstrating the infirmity in the reasoning of the primary authority, renders the appellate order legally deficient.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai ((1983) 1 SCC 35), has observed as under:

               8. ….. The principle is one of practice and governs the weight to be given to a finding of fact by the trial court. There is, of course, no doubt that as a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on a misreading of the evidence or on conjectures and surmises the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. Our attention has been drawn by the respondents to the Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Sub-Lt. Arabinda Chakravarti [AIR 1959 SC 597 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 979 : 1959 SCJ 815] but nothing said therein detracts, in our opinion, from the validity of the proposition enunciated here. (emphasis supplied)

23. In the present case, a comparative scrutiny of the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 01.08.2000 and the 1st respondent dated 28.03.2008 reveals a manifest and material departure from this settled legal standard, which is as follows:

               Findings of the 2nd respondent: The order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.08.2000 is the product of a comprehensive fact-finding inquiry undertaken pursuant to a remand direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. The 2nd respondent examined a consistent chain of primary and contemporaneous records spanning several decades, including:

               i. the Sethwar, describing the land as ‘Dastugardhan Inam’,

               ii. Pahanies from 1960–61 to 1973–74,

               iii. the Vasool Baqui,

               iv. a certificate of the Jagir Administration, and

               v. the Muntaqab and an official communication of the Endowments Department dated 29.05.1989, expressly stating that Sy.No.384 is not entered in the temple records.

               These documents collectively supported the conclusion that the subject land was not endowment property. The reasoning is sequential, supported by verifiable material, and directly responsive to the specific jurisdictional question remitted by this Court.

               The relevant portion of order dated 01.08.2000 of the 2nd respondent is hereby extracted for the ready reference:

               In view of the discussions and also compromise arrived between the parties and since the land is not recorded in Endowment Register and also does not contain in the Munthakhab issued by the Endowment Department, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by this Tribunal in file No.L/661/87, L/1556/90 and L/4825/91 in favour of different persons in respect of Sy.No.384, totally admeasuring 15-23 Acs. and the same are hereby confirmed. This order is subject to the provisions of U.D. (C&R)Act, 1976. Further this order does not dis-entitle the Endowment Department from filing appeal before the competent anthority U/s 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

               Findings of the 1st respondent: The impugned order dated 28.03.2008 stands in stark contrast. The 1st respondent has not analysed the extensive evidence relied upon by the 2nd respondent. The order does not disclose how or why the factual findings recorded by the 2nd respondent were erroneous. Instead, the appellate authority has rested its entire conclusion on a single document styled as an ‘extract register of Inam’ furnished by the Endowments department, without discussing its origin, authenticity, evidentiary value, or consistency with the older and more authoritative records forming the basis of the 2nd respondent’s determination. This omission amounts to a failure to consider relevant material and vitiates the order.

               The relevant portion of order dated 28.03.2008 of the 1st respondent is hereby extracted for the ready reference:

               On perusal of the extract register of Inam and patta lands of Institutions of Hyderabad & Ranga Reddy District furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments it is found that the land bearing Sy.No.384 measuring 15-23 gts situated at Attapur village Rajendranagar Mandal is recorded in the name of Sri Ramachandraji Bagwan (Rambagh).

               It is clear that the lands in question are temple lands belonging to of Sri Ramachandraji Bagwan (Rambagh. In the light of the above cited proviso to Section 4 (1) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act 1955, it is not permissible to register any person as an occupant in respect of Inams held by charitable and religious institutions. Further, if any person is registered as an occupant in respect of such lands, such a registration is null and void.

               Therefore, the impugned proceedings is null and void. The Occupancy Rights Certificate issued to the respondents in respect of temple lands has no legal effect. Hence, the impugned proceedings 1/859/1996 dated 01-08-2000 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents in Sy.Nos.384 measuring Ac.15-23 gts situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal is hereby set aside. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.

24. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order stands vitiated by clear perversity. The appellate authority has ignored a substantial corpus of primary and contemporaneous evidence forming the foundation of the 2nd respondent’s determination, has failed to engage with or even advert to the reasoning recorded by the primary authority, and has rested its conclusion solely upon a solitary document whose authenticity and evidentiary worth were never examined. The order contains no analytical basis for displacing the well-reasoned findings of the 2nd respondent. An order suffering from such deficiencies cannot be regarded as a valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The absence of a reasoned adjudication strikes at the root of procedural fairness and violates the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

25. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 28.03.2008 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for a fresh adjudication. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall undertake a comprehensive reconsideration of the matter, expressly addressing the findings recorded and the documentary evidence relied upon by respondent No.2 in his order dated 01.08.2000. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The entire exercise shall be completed, expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of status quo with respect to possession granted by this Court on 01.09.2008, shall continue until a final order is passed by respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.