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.18032 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.F1/219/2023,
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.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.17 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/1151/1989, dated 01.02.1990, which was preceded by a
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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.7682 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 20.03.2023, 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,
LNA, J
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
LNA, J
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
2019 SCC Online TS 3455
LNA, J
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.
LNA, J
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.
LNA, J
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
