THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.1548 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.Srikanth
Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue
representing respondents No.1 and 2.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.18216 of 2005 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. The related writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 16.07.2005 passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and further for a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the appellant against grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) by respondent No.2 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, 2 Ranga Reddy District, in favour of respondent No.3 on 12.03.1996 on merit.
4. On 12.03.1996, respondent No.2 granted ORC in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.9.37 guntas in Survey No.1285 of Shamirpet Village and Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. This came to be challenged by the appellant by filing appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) along with an application for condonation of delay of six years three months and twenty six days in filing the appeal. Respondent No.1, being the appellate authority, rejected the application for condonation of delay on 16.07.2005 on the ground that appellant had knowledge of grant of ORC in the year 1998 itself in view of filing of civil suit against him. Consequently, the appeal was rejected. This came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing W.P.No.18216 of 2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 05.09.2008. Hence, the appeal.
3
5. In the order dated 16.07.2005, respondent No.1 noted that appellant was a defendant in the civil suit between the parties pertaining to the same plot of land pending since the year 1998. Appellant had filed a written statement in the civil suit wherein mention was made about the ORC. Therefore, respondent No.1 rejected the contention of the appellant that appellant came to know about the ORC only in the year 2002. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
6. In the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit. It was stated therein that brother of the appellant - Mohammed Afzal, was the defendant in O.S.No.160 of 1998. Appellant, being a member of the joint family, had knowledge of the suit in which written statement was filed wherein reference was made to the grant of ORC in the year 1996. It was further noted that the appellant had filed W.P.No.13810 of 2003 through his brother - Mohammed Afzal, as the General Power of Attorney holder, which showed that the two brothers were on cordial terms and that brother of the 4 appellant was acting on behalf of the appellant whenever it was found necessary. Learned Single Judge further noted that in the writ affidavit appellant neither disclosed filing of the civil suit by respondent No.3 nor made a statement that he was not aware of filing of any such civil suit. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge did not find any illegally in the view taken by respondent No.1 there being inordinate delay of more than six years in filing the appeal. Respondent No.1 rightly declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
7. While concurring with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we may further add that while the appellant was aggrieved by grant of ORC to respondent No.3, he did not point out as to whether he had filed any application before the appropriate authority under Section 4 of the Act for grant of ORC in his favour. In the absence of any such claim made on his behalf, it was not open to him to challenge grant of ORC in favour of respondent No.3. Unless a claimant asserts that he is entitled to ORC, it is not open to such a claimant to contend that the beneficiary 5 is not entitled to ORC. We therefore do not find any good ground to entertain the writ appeal.
8. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 26.10.2022 vs