Durgam Sreeraamulu, R.R. Dist. vs The Jt. Collector And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2667 Tel

         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

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.

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

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

2007 (2) ALD 28

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.

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