Telangana High Court
Mohd. Azmath vs The Joint Collector on 26 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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,
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.
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
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
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
