Mirza Mustafa Ali Baig S/Olate ... vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5054 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                WRIT APPEAL No.985 of 2008

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      Heard Mr. Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, learned counsel

for the appellants and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao,

learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondents No.1 and 2.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

06.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.1542 of 2007 filed by the appellants as the writ

petitioners.

3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition taking

exception to the order of respondent No.1 i.e., Joint

Collector of Ranga Reddy District dated 26.07.2005 in

dismissing their appeal as barred by limitation.

4. The facts have been summed up by learned Single

Judge in the following manner:

"The petitioners herein along with ten (10) others claimed to be successors of inam land in survey Nos.421, 425, 426, 437 and 464 to 467 admeasuring Acs.3.19 guntas situated at Turkaguda H/o.Rachaloor village of Kandukur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. However, on an application made by Vatnala Chandraiah, father of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Hyderabad East Division - fourth respondent herein; granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 12.12.1983 under Section 10 of A.P.(T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity) in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before the third respondent under Section 24 of the Act in the year 2000. They also filed application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. By an order dated 26.7.2005, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition."

5. Learned Single Judge thereafter observed that though

Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, granted discretion to the

appellate authority i.e., Joint Collector, to entertain an

appeal filed beyond 30 days, such extension of limitation

was a discretion granted to the appellate authority and not

a right conferred upon the appellants. Therefore, learned

Single Judge examined as to whether the appellate

authority had exercised its discretion in a fair and

judicious manner while dismissing the appeal as being

barred by limitation. Learned Single Judge held as follows:

"Section 24 of the Act requires an aggrieved person to file appeal within thirty (30) days or during such time, as may be allowed by the appellate authority. The language of Section 24 would show that discretion is given to the Joint Collector to entertain appeal, which is filed beyond thirty days, but the same does not give a right to aggrieved person to file appeal beyond thirty days. The right o appeal is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 24 of the Act, and therefore, by examining the validity of the order of the appellate authority declining to condone the delay, one has to see whether discretion is exercised properly or not. In this case, admittedly, the ORC was issued in favour of the predecessor of the second respondent on 12.12.1983 and admittedly the appeal was filed in 2000, after lapse of about sixteen years. The Joint Collector was therefore justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. In such an event, no application for judicial review can ordinarily be entertained. Secondly, though the impugned order was passed by the Joint Collector on 26.7.2005, the present writ petition is filed on 22.1.2007, after lapse of more than one year six months."

6. Thus, from the above, we find that Occupancy Rights

Certificate (ORC) was issued to the predecessor of

respondent No.4 on 12.12.1983. The appeal was filed in

the year 2000, after a lapse of more than sixteen years.

Therefore, the appellate authority was justified in

dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

7. In the hearing today, on a query by the Court,

learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the

affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition

(page 20 of the paper book). We find therefrom that the

delay condonation petition was filed in the year 2003, three

years after the appeal was filed in the year 2000. It was

stated therein that only after the Mandal Revenue Officer

in mutation proceedings dated 16.09.2000 discarded the

land in question, did they come to know about the

issuance of such ORC in favour of predecessor of

respondent No.4. We are afraid a delay of 17/20 years can

be explained in such a cursory manner. Once, the ORC is

granted, it is axiomatic that it would be reflected in the

record of rights from the next year itself. If the appellants

were concerned about their rights over the land in

question, they ought to have verified the land records

much earlier than what was stated in the delay

condonation petition.

8. That apart, learned Single Judge also noted that

while the appeal was dismissed by the Joint Collector on

26.07.2005, the related writ petition came to be filed much

belatedly on 22.01.2007.

9. Thus there is a consistent pattern of delay and

laches.

10. In the circumstances, we see no good reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

11. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ appeal.

The 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 12.10.2022 vs