Telangana High Court
N.Sudhakar Chary vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Petition No.18228 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in entertaining/adjudicating the appeal vide File No.F1/218/2023, dated 17.06.2023, filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, as illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
2. Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri A.Abhinandan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.6 to 9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.01 guntas in Sy.No.16 situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land) by virtue of Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) vide Proc.No.L/1152/1989, dated 01.02.1990, which was preceded by a 2 LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023 detailed order dated 16.01.1990; that the subject land devolved upon the petitioner herein, since all the family members who have shares in the subject land, including N.Satyanarayana-father of the writ petitioners, and also the cousins of the petitioner, viz., N.Panduranga Chary, N.Gnana Chary and N.Prakash Chary have given their sworn statements relinquishing their rights in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner and as such, considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, has issued ORC in favour of the petitioner in Form-III, dated 01.02.1990 and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and further, pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. He further submitted that due to abnormal escalation of value of subject land, respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are children of N.Satyanarayana-one of the brothers of the petitioner, with ill intention have filed an Appeal before respondent No.3-Additinoal Collector (Revenue), Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. 3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the said Appeal has been filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 after a lapse of 33 years from the date of issuance of ORC to the petitioner, that 3 LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023 too, without filing an application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal, which is mandatory. He further submitted that except saying that the appeal is filed within limitation period, no explanation has been offered by respondent Nos.6 to 9. 3.2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that as the Appeal was not entertained by respondent No.3 at first instance in view of limitation, respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed Writ Petition No.7713 of 2023 before this Court by suppressing the material facts and merely stated that respondent No.3 is not entertaining the appeal preferred by them and that this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition, vide order dated 17.03.2023, directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Learned counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the said order, respondent No.3 entertained the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9, without considering the limitation period, therefore, aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 9-children of N.Satyanarayana, 4 LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023 who is one of the brothers of petitioner, are disputing the sworn statement purported to have been given by N.Satyanarayana relinquishing his right in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 9, being legal heirs of N.Satyanarayana have also share in the subject land, therefore, once they came to know about issuance of ORC in favour of petitioner, they preferred appeal before respondent No.3 within a period of 30 days from the date of knowledge and in fact, at para-8 of appeal, respondent Nos.6 to 9 have clearly explained that they came to know about issuance of ORC in favour of petitioner only in the month of November, 2022 and after obtaining certified copy of the said ORC on 05.01.2023, they filed Appeal in accordance with Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. He further submitted that petitioner has only pointed out to ground No.(J) without referring to para-8 of the appeal, hence, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9. By submitting thus, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 to buttress his submissions relied upon the judgment of this Court in 5 LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023 M.Ramulamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer 1. In the said case, this Court took cognizance of the fact that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ORC in favour of father of respondent Nos.3 to 6 was passed without any notice to the petitioners, who are parties therein, as alleged by the petitioners, and further, respondent Nos.3 to 6 also did not plead as to issuance of any notice to the petitioners at the time when the said order granting ORC was passed, much less, serving a copy of the said order on the petitioners. In such circumstances, this Court held that limitation for challenging the order would commence only from the date of knowledge of order and not from the date of the order under challenge.
6. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent Nos.6 to 9 are not parties to the ORC proceedings and further, it is also not their case that the said ORC was issued in favour of petitioner without issuance of notice to their father-N.Satyanarayana, who was a party therein, and that even a copy of the said ORC was not served on him.
7. As such, the facts and circumstances of the instant case and that of the case in M.Ramulamma (cited supra) are entirely 1 2019 SCC Online TS 3455 6 LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023 distinct. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in M.Ramulamma's case (cited supra) is not applicable to the instant case.
8. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that the appellate authority may be directed to frame an issue as to the limitation and decide the same, before entertaining the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the Writ Petition may be disposed of directing the appellate authority to frame an issue of limitation, decided the same and thereafter, proceed with the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9.
10. A perusal of record discloses that in the appeal, respondent Nos.6 to 9, though at para-J of Grounds have mentioned that appeal is filed within the prescribed period, at para-8 specifically mentioned that they came to know about issuance of ORC dated 16.02.1990 in favour of petitioner only in the month of November, 2022; that they obtained certified copy of ORC on 05.01.2023; and thereafter, they filed appeal on 06.02.2023, therefore, the Appeal is within the period of limitation.
7
LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023
11. Section 24(1) of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, stipulates that an appeal against the decision of the Collector under Section 10 of the said Act, which includes issuance of ORC, has to be filed within thirty days from the date of such order and if there is delay, sufficient cause has to be shown.
12. In the light of the above and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing respondent No.3 to frame a preliminary issue on the aspect of limitation, decide the same on merits, by duly adverting to Section 24(1) of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and subject to result of the said preliminary issue, respondent No.3 shall proceed further with the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to take all the objections including the limitation aspect before the appellate authority. 8
LNA, J WP.No.18228 of 2023
13. Subject to the above directions and observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:09.09.2025 dr