THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.402 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. N.Abhishek, learned counsel representing
Mr. B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Allam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents.
2. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by appellant No.1 has been dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are that appellant No.1 claimed title in respect of land measuring Acs.0.28 guntas in Survey No.140 and 2 Acs.6.00 in Survey No.141 of Dulapally Village of Qutbullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as, "the subject land").
4. Appellant No.1 claimed title on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by the original inamdar, namely V.Ranga Reddy. In the year 1987, two suits were filed. The first suit was filed against one Durgam Chandraiah seeking the relief of injunction. The other suit was filed against appellant No.1 and his sons seeking delivery of possession.
5. The occupancy rights were granted in favour of Durgam Chandraiah under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was issued in his favour on 30.01.1981. Appellant No.1 thereafter filed an appeal before the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 24 of the Act.
3
6. The District Collector by an order dated 23.10.1990 allowed the appeal and set aside the ORC granted in favour of Durgam Chandraiah and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The aforesaid Durgam Chandraiah thereupon filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.1136 of 1991, against the order passed by the District Collector. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 12.12.1997 remitted the matter to the District Collector who was directed to consider the question of limitation also while deciding the appeal after giving notice to both the parties.
7. The Joint Collector, however, dismissed the appeal for default on 30.07.2005 which was subsequently restored by the Joint Collector. The appeal preferred by appellant No.1 was dismissed by an order dated 04.10.2008 inter alia on the ground that ORC was issued in the year 1981, whereas the appeal has been filed in the year 1987 without even filing an application for condonation of delay. It was further held that appellant No.1, who is neither in 4 possession nor personally cultivating the land, is not entitled for grant of ORC.
8. Appellant No.1 challenged the validity of the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2008 in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.01.2009 has dismissed the said writ petition.
9. With the aforesaid factual background, this writ appeal arises.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant No.1.
11. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
12. Admittedly, appellant No.1 claims to be an alienee from the original inamdar, V.Ranga Reddy. In Chama Narasimha Reddy v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 1, it has been held that the person 1 2007 (2) ALD 28 5 who claims to be an alienee from the inamdar after 20.07.1955 cannot claim occupancy rights over the lands in question.
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that appellant has no right to claim occupancy rights over the subject land. The learned Single Judge has held that the order passed by the Joint Collector does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of powers of judicial review.
14. We concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal.
15. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Needless to state that the aforesaid observations made in this judgment have been made only for the purpose of deciding the validity of the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24040 of 2008.
6
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 23.09.2023 vs