Telangana High Court
Smt. Meghavath Shakri vs State Of Telangana on 29 January, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.12131 AND 15971 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri V.Rohith, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Kusuru Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent Nos.6 to 13.
2. W.P.No.12131 of 2024 is filed challenging the order
passed by the respondent No.3 i.e, Additional Collector, Revenue
(FAC), Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/5731/2016 dated
30.05.2023 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Shadnagar by setting aside the Occupancy Rights
Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners’ father i.e., Balsetty
Chinnaiah vide D.Dis.No.IA/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 under
Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 ).
2
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
3. W.P.No.15971 of 2024 is filed challenging the order
passed by the respondent No.3 i.e, Additional Collector, Revenue
(FAC), Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/5745/2016 dated
30.05.2023 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Shadnagar by setting aside the Occupancy Rights
Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners vide file
No.K/613/91 dated 30.03.1991 under Section 24 of the Abolition
of Inams Act, 1955 .
4. The lis involved in both the writ petitions and respondents
are one and the same, therefore, both the writ petitions were
heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this
common order.
5. The contentions of the petitioners in W.P.No.12131 of
2024:
a) Originally, one late Vijender Reddy was recorded as
Maqthadar of the land total admeasuring Ac.427 guntas in
Sy.No.548 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal, Ranga
3
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024Reddy District (erstwhile Kothur Mandal of Mahabubnagar
District). According to the Revenue authorities, it is a Dastagard
Inam land. The name of the land is known as “Yangannagari
Pampu Dastagard”.
b) The said land in Sy.No.548 was assigned more than
100 new survey numbers. The petitioners are claiming right over
the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac.9.11
guntas in Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village. The father of the
petitioners was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said
land and as such, his name was also duly recorded in the revenue
records. In proof of the same, they have filed copies of
pahanies for the years 1973-74, form-I of old ROR. Respondent
Nos.6 to 13 filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar for declaration to declare them as
absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas out of 10.24
guntas in Sy.No.100 and also for recovery of possession.
4
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
c) As per the contents of the plaint, respondents 6 to 13
were never in possession of the subject property as legal heirs of
alleged protected tenant Sri Erragari Sayanna.
d) Petitioners filed written statement in the said suit
contending that after causing due enquiry by the then Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mehboobnagar under the Abolition of Inams
Act, 1955, vide proceedings D.Dis No.I.A./5418/78 dated
26.01.1981, Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour
of their father i.e., Balsetty Chinnaiah, in respect of the aforesaid
land. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also considered
relevant date of resting i.e., 01.01.1973.
e) In O.S.No.34 of 2004, respondent Nos.6 to 13 filed
an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.170 of 2011 seeking
permission to withdraw the said suit against the petitioners
contending that plaintiffs sold an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in
Sy.No.100 to defendants Nos.4 and 5 under unregistered sale
deeds for valid consideration and delivered its exclusive
possession to them on the same day. Ever since from the date of
5
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
purchase, till today, defendants Nos.4 and 5 therein are in
continuous, peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of
their purchased land property. Subsequently, respondents 4 and
5 therein obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate with respect to
their purchased land from the concerned Revenue authorities in
file No.D/Dis./I.A./5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 with the
knowledge and acceptance of plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs
specifically and categorically declares that ever since from the
date of alienation of the land to defendant Nos.4 and 5, plaintiffs
have not sought of right, claim, whatsoever against the property
holding by defendants 4 and 5. But, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are
made as parties to the suit on the legal advice only. Therefore,
plaintiffs decided to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos. 4
and 5 and also to maintain cordial relation with them.
f) Respondent Nos.6 to 13 also filed a memo dated
27.06.2011 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 seeking permission to
withdraw the suit against the defendants 4 and 5. On
consideration of the said aspects, learned Junior Civil Judge,
Shadnagar, allowed the said I.A., granting permission to the
6
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
respondents 6 to 13 herein/plaintiffs in O.S.No.34 of 2004 to
withdraw the claim against the defendant Nos.4 and 5.
Thereafter, the suit was dismissed against defendants on merits
on 31.12.2012.
g) On 10.05.2013, respondents 6 to 13 preferred an
appeal under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955
claiming that one Eerragari Saiga @ Sayanna was common
ancestor of their family. The said Erragari Sayanna had three
sons namely Erragari Pentaiah, Eerragari Buchaiah and Eerragari
Jangaiah. After the death of Eerragari Saiga @ Sayanna, his
legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 13 herein succeeded the said
property, they are in possession and enjoyment of the land to an
extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac.9.11 gunts in
Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Rangareddy
District.
h) With the said contentions, respondents 6 to 13
sought to set aside the Occupancy Right Certificates issued in
favour of the petitioners herein dated 26.01.1981.
7
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
i) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahboobabad
issued Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the father of the
petitioners. On consideration of relevant date of vesting i.e.,
01.11.1973 with regard to occupation over the land by the father
of the petitioners i.e., Late Balsetty Chinnaiah. Statement
showing 38 E/final list was also filed. The said appeal was
preferred with an abnormal delay of 22 years without explaining
the delay.
j) The petitioners made the aforesaid contentions
including filing of O.S.No.34 of 2004 and I.A.No.170 of 2011
and also memo dated 27.11.2011. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 also
preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree
and judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2004 dated 31.12.2012. The said
appeal is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Shadnagar. Thus, having withdrawn suit against the petitioners
after dismissal of the said suit, respondents 6 to 13 preferred
appeal under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955,
assailing Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 after
more than 30 years. They have not explained the delay in filing
8
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
the said appeal and they did not even file an application
condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. They have not
pleaded fraud in the grounds of appeal.
k) The only contention raised by the respondents 6 to
13 in the said appeal was that the Occupancy Rights Certificate
dated 26.01.1981 was issued in favour of their father without
issuing any notice. Without considering the said aspects, vide
impugned order dated 30.05.2023, the 2nd respondent allowed the
said appeal, remanded the matter back to the 4th respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct discreet
enquiry with reference to the revenue records, duly verifying
whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting
all the interested persons on notice and giving them an
opportunity of hearing. Challenging the said order, the
petitioners filed the present writ petition.
6. The contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.15971 of
2024:
9
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
a) The petitioners are claiming right over the land
admeasuring Ac.3.00 and 4.21 guntas total admeasuring Ac.7.21
guntas in Sy.No.100 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District. Since the petitioners are illiterates, they
have not get their names mutated in the revenue record.
However, they are cultivating the said land. The name of Erragari
Pentaiah was recorded as occupier in respect of the land in
Sy.No.100 admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in the pahanis for the
year 1985-86. Islavath Desya S/o Rupla was recorded. Therefore,
to avoid litigation, petitioners also obtained registered sale deeds
bearing document Nos.126 of 1984 and 127 of 1984 both dated
19-01-1984 and 2331 of 1989 dated 07-08-1989. The name of
Islavath Desya was recorded as cultivator in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 in pahani for
the year 1987-88. In Form No.I, ROR issued for the year 1989-
90, the names of Meghavath Shekia, Megavath Sakri and Islavath
Deshya were recorded as the purchasers of the land to an extent
of Ac.1.20 guntas, Ac.1.20 guntas and Ac.4.21 guntas
respectively in Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village.
10
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
b) After conducting due enquiry and verifying the
records, Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer in favor of writ petitioners vide file
No. K/613/91, dated 30.03.1991 in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.3.00 and Ac. 4.21 guntas total Ac.7.21 guntas in
Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village.
c) Despite executing the above referred registered sale
deeds, respondents 6 to 11 filed a suit vide O.S.No. 34 of 2004
against the writ petitioners and also against one Balsetty
Ramachandraiah and Balsetty Yadaiah seeking to declare them as
absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in
Sy.No.100 situated at Nandigama Village and also for recovery
of possession. The said suit was dismissed on 31-12-2012 on
merits. The writ petitioners filed written statement in the said suit
contending that they have obtained aforesaid Occupancy Rights
Certificate dated 30.03.1991 in File No. K/613/91 from the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in respect of the
land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas and Ac.4.21 guntas, total
admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 of Nandiagama
11
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
Village. After dismissal of the said suit, respondent Nos.6 to 11
preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector in the month of
April 2013 under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 challenging the ORC dated 30.03.1991 issued in favour of
the petitioners. They have not alleged fraud in the grounds of
appeal. The said appeal was filed only on the ground that notices
were not issued to them. They also preferred an appeal vide
A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree and judgment dated
31.12.2012 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 and the same is pending.
During the pendency of the said appeal before the Joint Collector
filed under Section 24(1) of Abolition of Inams Act, 1955,
respondent Nos.6 to 11 filed three suits i.e O.S.No.55 of 2017, 56
of 2017 and 57 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Shadnagar for cancellation of registered sale deeds
executed in favor of the writ petitioners. All the said suits were
dismissed for default on 14.09.2023.
d) The said aspects were specifically stated by the
petitioners in the counter filed before the respondent No. 3 in the
aforesaid appeal. Without considering the said aspects, vide
12
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
impugned order dated 30.05.2023 respondent No.3 allowed the
said appeal remanded the matter back to the 4th respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct discreet
enquiry with reference to the revenue records, duly verifying
whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting
all the interested persons on notice and affording them an
opportunity of hearing. Challenging the said order, the
petitioners filed the present writ petition.
7. The contentions of the respondents in both the writ
petitions:
a) Late Erragari Saiga @ Sayanna was the common
ancestor of their family. He had three sons namely Erragari
Pentaiah, Erragari Buchaiah and Erragari Jangaiah. Erragari
Pentaiah had three sons i.e late Erragari Anjaiah, Erragari
Jangaiah and Erragari Sayanna. Erragari Parvathamma is the wife
of Erragari Anjaiah and Erragari Jangaiah and Erragari Sayanna
are the legal heirs of Erragari Pentaiah. Erragari Buchaiah had
three sons namely Erragari Ramaiah, Erragari Jangaiah and
13
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024Erragari Swamy. Erragari Pochamma is the wife of Erragari
Buchaiah. There is no relationship between the petitioners and
the unofficial respondents.
b) Erragari Sayanna and 10 others were protected
tenants over the land in Sy.No.548 admeasuring Acs.427 guntas
situated at Nandigama Village, Ranga Reddy District. Late
Vijayender Reddy was the pattadar of the said land. After the
death of the said Erragari Sayanna, his legal heirs succeeded the
said property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the
land to an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac. 9.11
guntas in Sy.No.101. As per Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the
protected tenancy is an inheritable interest on the legal heirs of
actual protected tenants.
c) It is further contended that originally, there were
eleven protected tenants over the land admeasuring Ac.427
guntas in Sy.No.548 situated at Nandigama Village and they
were Erragari Sayanna and 10 others. Late Vijayendar Reddy
14
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024was the Pattadar of the said land. The old Sy.No.548 was divided
into more than 100 new survey numbers and one such a survey
no is. 100 and 101 on which only Erragari Sayanna was the
protected tenant over land in Sy.Nos.100 and 101 of Nandigama
Village. The agriculture land in Sy.No.100 to an extent of
Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and land admeasuring Ac.9.11
guntas in Sy.No.101, other lands are Dastagard Inam lands. Late
Erragari Sayanna, who was the protected tenant possessing over
the land admeasuring Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No. 100 and Ac.9.11
guntas in Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village. After his death, his
sons cultivating the said land and their names were also recorded
in the revenue records. The legal heirs of late Erragari Sayanna
are in possession of the subject property in Sy.Nos.100 and 101.
Neither late Balsetty Chinnaiah nor his legal heirs were in
possession over the land in Sy.No.100 admeasuring Ac.3.00
guntas and Ac. 9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101. Even then, without
knowledge of unofficial respondents, one Meghavath Shekya and
the writ petitioners got mutated the land to an extent of Ac.7.21
guntas in Sy.No.100 in the revenue records. Having no other
15
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
option, unofficial respondents filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2004
seeking declaration and recovery of possession. The same was
dismissed on 31-12-2012 on the ground that the writ
petitioners/defendants in the said suit, obtained the Occupancy
Rights Certificates. During pendency of the said suit, on the
advice of the plaintiffs’ counsel, they have filed a memo in the
month of June, 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the said
suit against the petitioners herein and filed an amendment
petition. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn.
d) Thereafter, on the advice of counsel, they have
obtained copies of the said Occupancy Rights Certificates and
filed appeal on 04.04.2013 challenging the said Occupancy Right
Certificates contending that the writ petitioners are nothing to do
with the subject property. They are not the legal heirs of Erragari
Saiga @ Sayanna protected tenant in respect of the subject
property. Only legal heir of protected tenants are entitled for
Occupancy Rights Certificate and they should be in possession of
the subject property as on the date of vesting i.e 01-11-1973. On
consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated
16
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
30.05.2023, respondent No.3 allowed the said appeals and
remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 with a direction to
conduct discreet enquiry with reference to revenue records duly
verifying as to whether the land is vacant or covered by
structures while putting all the interested parties on notice and
giving them an opportunity of hearing. There is no error in the
said orders.
8. Both Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao and Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao
learned Senior Counsel and the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue, made their submissions extensively
referring to the writ petitions, counters and reply affidavit.
9. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid
down by the Apex Court and this Court in the following
judgments:
a) “R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir 1, A.C. Anantha
Swamy & Others Vs. Boraiah (Dead) by LRs 2″,1
(1992) 4 SCC 683
17
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
b) “T.S. Anand and Another Vs. State of Telangana and
Others 3”,
c) “D.Narasimha Rao Vs. Joint Collector,
Mahabubnagar District and Others” 4,
d) “Devireddy Srikanth Reddy & another Vs. Joint
Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and
others 5”,
e) “Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. State of
Telangana and others 6″,
f) “Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. The State of
Telangana & others 7″,
h) “Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham
Vs. K. Suresh Reddy and Others 9″,
i) “Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer 10″,2
(2004) 8 SCC 588
3
2022 (4) ALD 295 (TS)
4
2023 (4) ALD 558 (TS)(DB)
5
2024 (2) ALD 576 (TS)
6
W.A.No.242 of 2020 decided on 26.08.2020
7
SLP (C) No.14113 of 2020 decided on 27.11.2020
8
(2021) 15 Supreme Court Cases 300
9
(2003) 7 SCC 667
10
(2013) 14 SCC 81
18
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
j) “K. Chandra Prakash and another Vs. Joint
Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Another 11″ and
h) “Union of India and Another Vs. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lr 12″.
10. In support of his submissions, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial
respondents in both the writ petitions placed reliance on the
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
following judgments:
b) “K. Chandra Prakash (Supra), Syed Hussan Sab
(died) per LRs. Vs. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar
District and Others 14″and
c) “State of Orissa and others Vs. Brundan Sharma and
another 15.
11
2021 (5) ALD 131 (TS)
12
2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
13
(2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 102
14
2010 (4) ALD 413
15
1995 Supp (3) SCC 249
19
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
11. The aforesaid rival submissions and contentions of the
parties would reveal that the unofficial respondents in both the
writ petitions had filed an appeal under Section 24(1) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the writ petitioners
challenging the Occupancy Rights Certificates vide proceedings
No.D.Dis.No.IA/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 and F1/5745/2016
dated 30.03.1991.
12. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the
unofficial respondents filed the said appeal after a lapse of 33
years without even filing an application to condone the delay,
explaining the said abnormal delay in preferring the appeal.
Unofficial respondents have to prefer an appeal under Section 24
of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 within 30 days. They have
not preferred the same within 30 days and not even filed any
application to condone the delay by explaining the delay.
13. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note
that Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, deals with
20
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed authority. IT
is extracted hereunder:
“i) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Collector under section 10 may, within thirty days from the
date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed
authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the
prescribed authority and its decision shall be final.
ii) If any question arises whether any building or land
falls within the scope of section 9, the same shall be
referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be
final.”
14. Thus, appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of
decision; however, the appellate authority has power to condone
the delay on explaining the satisfactory cause/reason.
15. In the present case, the appeals were filed on 04.04.2013
and 10.05.2013 challenging the ORCs dated 26.01.1981 and
30.03.1991. Admittedly, they have not filed the said appeals
within 30 days from the date of the said orders, they have not
filed any applications to condone the delay and they have not
explained the satisfactory reasons in preferring the appeals.
21
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
16. It is settled principle that under Section 24(1) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, respondent No.3-appellate
authority has power to condone the delay. But the unofficial
respondents in both the writ petitions neither filed any
application to condone the delay nor explained the delay.
17. The said aspect was fell for consideration before this Court
in “A.C.Anantha Swamy and others (supra), T.S. Anand and
another(supra)”, “D. Narsimha Rao (supra), Devi Reddy
Srikanth Reddy and another” (supra) and “Chennagalla
Jangaiah and others” (supra). This Court had an occasion to
deal with filing of appeals beyond 30 days without even filing
applications of the condonation of delay and the parties therein
obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate from the Revenue
Divisional Officer by playing fraud. On examination of the facts
in the said cases, this Court held that the factum of fraud was
pleaded, and proved by producing evidence. Simply making a
bald assertion that fraud has been played by obtaining the order,
without giving the details as to how and in what manner fraud is
played, will not initiate the proceedings, more so, respondent
22
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
No.5 therein has participated in the said proceedings and filed a
compromise memo. The Courts have held that mere assertions
that orders are obtained by fraud will not reshape the said
proceedings, but the same has to be pleaded in empathetic terms
and proved by the party asserting and by leading evidence.
18. In the said case, Joint Collector allowed the appeals filed
by the parties therein setting aside the Occupancy Rights
Certificates issued in favor of the parties. The said appeals were
filed with the delay of 18 years.
19. The Apex Court in catena of decisions categorically held
that various appeals prescribed for particular period for preferring
an appeal/revision, as the case may be, the aggrieved party has to
file such appeal/revision within the prescribed time of limitation.
If there is any delay in approaching the appellate
authority/regional authority, the parties obligated in filing
application seeking condonation of delay duly explaining the
reasons and also showing the sufficient cause. In the absence of
the same, the appeal has to thrown out at the threshold by the
23
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
appellate authority on the ground of limitation without going into
the merits of the case. Even if a party claim that they can plead
delay in the appeal itself, there is no need of filing separate
application seeking condonation of delay since the appellate
authorities are quasi judicial official, even then, parties have to
explain the delay in preferring the appeal satisfactorily.
20. On consideration of the said facts and the law laid down by
the Apex Court in catena of decisions, this Court set aside the
orders passed by the appellate authority/Joint Collector.
21. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court
in “D. Narsimha Rao” (supra) found fault with the line of
reasoning adopted by the Single Judge in condoning the delay
and upholding the order passed by the appellate authority.
22. In “Devireddy Srikanth Reddy and another” (supra),
the appeals were filed after 17 years without explaining the
delay. On examination of the facts therein, this Court allowed the
writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the appellate
authority. This Court also placed reliance on the principle laid
24
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
down by a Full Bench in “Executive Officer, group of
Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahbubnagar Dist. Vs. Joint
Collector, Mahaboobnagar and others 16” , wherein a full
Bench of this Court held that only legal heirs of protected tenant
is entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificates.
23. It is relevant to note that the said judgment is under
challenge and the Apex Court granted Status-quo on 01-02-2023.
24. “Chennagala Jangaiah and others” (supra) appeals
were filed after a lapse of 33 years. On examination of the facts
therein, a Division Bench of this Court held that ORC was
granted on 30.01.1981, it is difficult to assume that a person
enjoying the agriculture lands does not have any information
about the entries in the revenue records. The appeal was infact
filed after a lapse of 33 years from the date when the ORC was
granted. Assuming that date of knowledge was in the year 2006,
when the revision was filed by the appellants, still there is delay
of more than 6 years and there is no explanation whatsoever in
16
2023 (1) ALD 83
25
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
the delay condonation affidavit filed in the appeal before the
Joint collector as to the date of knowledge and also the cause of
such delay. With the said observations, this Court dismissed the
writ appeal confirming the orders passed by a Single Judge. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the said order of the Division
Bench vide order dated 27.11.2020 in Special Leave vide SC
No.14499 of 2020.
25. In “R.N. Gosain” (supra), the Apex Court held that law
does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. The
said principle is based on a doctrine of election which oscillate
that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a
person cannot say at one time that the transaction is valid and
thereby obtained some advantage, to which he could not only be
entitled to contend that it is valid and then turn around and to say
it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
26. In “A.C.Anantha Swamy and others” (supra), the Apex
Court held that mere pleading of fraud is not sufficient, fraud is
to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that
26
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
representation made was false to be knowledge of the party
making such representation or that the party could have no
reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in
such cases is extremely higher. An Unambiguous statement
cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a
case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was
false to the knowledge of the party making such representation.
27. In the said case, the Apex court examined the facts of the
said case i.e., as to whether summons were served or not. There
was a bare allegation of fraud. The Hon’ble Apex court
considered the principle laid down by it in “Choksi Bhidarbhai
Mathurbhai Vs. Purushottamdas Bhogilal Shah17” wherein
the Apex Court held that where the only fraud alleged is a bare
non-service of summons, then such a suit to set aside the decree
on alleged ground of fraud was not maintainable. Referring to the
said principle, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant therein.
17
AIR1962Guj 10: (1961) 2 Guj LR 509
27
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
28. In “Ratan Singh and others” (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court considered that party who pleads fraud has to plead the
following two ingredients:
1. Existence of fraud
2. Discovery of such fraud.
29. The Apex Court also placed reliance on Section 17 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 and effect of fraud or mistake. On
examination of the facts of the said case, holding that the plaintiff
failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for
its discovery and therefore, plaintiff cannot be extended benefit
under the said provision.
30. In “Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam”
(supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle.
31. In “Basawaraj and another” (supra), the Apex Court held
that while condoning the delay, Courts have to exercise
discretion judiciously based on the facts and circumstance of
each case. Sufficient cause should be given a liberal
28
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only
so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be
imputed to the party concerned. Even though the limitation may
harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all
its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power
to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has
no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision
may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the
court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the
same. “Inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered
while interpreting a statute. If the Courts start substituting period
of limitation, then it would amount to legislation, which is
impermissible. If party acted with negligence, lack of bonafides
or inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for
condoning the delay by imposing the conditions.
32. In “Chandra Prakash” (supra), on examination of facts
therein, more particularly, execution of registered sale deeds in
29
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
favor of the parties by the original Inamdars, it was held that the
appellate authority being Quasi Judicial Officer cannot go into all
the said aspects and it is for the Civil Court to decide the same.
33. In “Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 18″, this Court made the
following observations:
“21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can
broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an
application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not
supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove
injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood
in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had
to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be
applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal
the technical considerations should not be given undue and
uncalled for emphasis.
18
2013 (12) SCC 649
30
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the
counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict
proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief
because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the
ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be
allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay
and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may
not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict
approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be
taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is
that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of
justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot
be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
31
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should
be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face
such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away
with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking
recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm
of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning
and not on individual perception.
21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity
representing a collective cause should be given some
acceptable latitude.
22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be
drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner
harboring the notion that the courts are required to condone
delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis
on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not
be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual
philosophy which is basically subjective.
32
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down
regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a
conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of
the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate
institutional motto.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a
non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be
exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of
course, within legal parameters.”
34. The Apex Court in “Union of India and Another“(supra)
and “Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and
others19″ held the said principle. The Apex Court found fault
with condonation of delay of 1011 days which is not explained
and sufficient cause was not shown.
35. In “Chandra Prakash” (supra), this Court considered the
provisions of Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and date of vesting
from 01.11.1973 and observed that the Act not only envisages
the grant of ORC in favour of only the persons who are
enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, but also that they
19
2021 18 SCC 384
33
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
should be in personal cultivation/possession of the subject lands
as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. Unless and until the
person meets these two criteria, the ORC cannot be issued.
36. In “Syed Hussain Sab” (supra), this Court found that
while considering the applications filed seeking Occupancy
Rights Certificates, the Primary Tribunal i.e., the Revenue
Divisional Officer shall consider as to whether the case of the
applicants would fall in one of the following five categories of
holders of land i.e., Inamdars, Kalize-e-Khadim, Permanent
tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants, and further
to prove that any of the category, they have to show that as on the
date of vesting, they were in possession of Inam lands as on
01.11.1973. This Court further held that the said persons who
are seeking Occupancy Rights Certificates as proof that any one
of the category and that they have to show as on the date of
vesting i.e., 01.11.1973, they were in possession of Inam lands.
34
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
37. The full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
“Sada Vs. Tahsildar20“, paragraph No.44, held as follows:
“44. In our view, this contention is not correct. If
a protected tenant is already in physical possession on the
date of notification there is no problem at all. If
proceedings under Ss. 19, 32 or 44 are pending, the date of
vesting gets itself postponed. If the ‘protected tenancy’
stood validly terminated by the date of notification under
Ss. 19, 32 or 44, in that ease, no certificate at all can be
issued. But, as long as a person continued to be a protected
tenant either under S. 34, 37, or 37-A, as per the Act and
has not lost that status, whether he is in actual possession
or not on the date of notification, and is also to be
‘deemed’ to be in possession under the first part of the
Explanation (subject to S. 32(7) and the proviso to S. 38-
E(1), the ownership stands transferred straight away to
such protected tenant by the very force of S. 38-E(1),
Further, S. 38-E(2) read with the A.P. (TA) Protected
Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973
contemplate a fullfledged inquiry after notice to the
landholders or after hearing objections of any other
interested person (vide Rules 4, 5) Once a certificate is
issued, the same is, under S. 38-E(2). ‘conclusive evidence’
of the ownership of the protected tenant, and cannot be
defeated by the result of any inquiry under second part of20
AIR 1988 AP 77
35
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024the Explanation to S. 38-E Another reason for this view is
that the inquiry under S. 38-E(2) read with the Rules of
1973 referred to above, is to be done by the Tribunal (the
Revenue Divisional Officer) and obviously his decision to
grant the ownership certificate will not and cannot be
jeopardised by the result of any inquiry by a subordinate
official like the Tahsildar, who deals with the granting of
possession to a ‘protected tenant’.”
38. The said principle was also held by Apex Court in
“Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan21“. Placing reliance on
the said principle, this Court in “B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala
Narayana Reddy and Others 22″, held that the interest of
protected tenant continuous to be operative and subsisting so
long as “protected tenancy” is not validly terminated. Even if
such protected tenant has lost possession of the land in question,
that by itself does not terminate the “protected tenancy”. In the
absence of such valid termination of protected tenancy, the
interest of such protected tenant continued to be operative and
subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and
21
2007 11 SCC 410
22
(2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 102
36
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
representatives who could then claim restoration of possession.
Even if the protected tenant had lost possession, without being
valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would still
be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act. The said
principle was also laid down by the full Bench in “Sada” (supra).
39. Further, in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Brudaban
Sharma and Another 23, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is
settled law that when the revisional power was conferred to
effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable manner
which limitation is an assurance to exercise the power with
caution of circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or
to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of provision of the
Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities or
fraud or suppression. Length of time depends on the factual
scenario in the given case. Take a case that patta was obtained
fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it comes to the
notice of the authorities after a long lapse of time. Does it lie in
the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away
23
1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 249
37
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
with the order? Does the lapse of time an excuse to reframe from
exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it
right. The answer would be no.
40. On examination of facts of the said case where patta
granted by the Tahsildar 27 years back was under challenge on
the ground of fraud. On satisfying with the contentions of the
parties therein that they have established fraud by pleading and
proving, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that challenging the patta
certificates even after 27 years is valid.
41. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the
principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court, coming to the
facts of the present writ petitions, as discussed supra, unofficial
respondents in both the writ petitions preferred appeals under
Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, challenging
the Occupancy Right Certificates, obtained by the writ petitioners
dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 in the appeals filed on
04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. Admittedly, they have not filed any
38
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
application to condone the delay explaining the delay in
preferring the appeal.
42. It is the specific contention of the unofficial respondents
that the 3rd respondent is a Quasi Judicial authority; therefore,
there is no need of filing separate application to condone the
delay. Evem if the said contention of unofficial respondents is
accepted, they have to explain the delay in the appeal itself.
43. Perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by unofficial
respondents under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 would reveal that, they contended that, after dismissal of
the said suit on 31.12.2012, their counsel advised that they prefer
an appeal challenging the ORCs, dated 26.01.1981 and
30.03.1991. Therefore, they have submitted applications on
22.03.2013, obtained copy of the aforesaid ORCs and filed
appeals on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013.
44. Perusal of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2004
would reveal that the unofficial respondents herein/plaintiffs
therein specifically pleaded about obtaining Occupancy Rights
39
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
Certificates in file No.A/613/1991 dated 30.03.1991. They are
the legal heirs of original protected tenant i.e., Erragari Sayanna
and original pattadar Vijender Reddy. Petitioners herein,
defendants in the said suit, filed written statement contending
that Occupancy Rights Certificate in file No.A/613/1991 dated
30.03.1991 was issued in favour of defendant No.3 i.e., petitioner
No.2 in W.P.No.15971 of 2024, with regard to land admeasuring
Ac.4.21 guntas in Sy.No.100. Her name was mutated in the
revenue record. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 also filed written
statement in the same lines. They have also specifically
contended about the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates
vide D.Dis.I.A/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981. Thus, the
petitioners/defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the said suit specifically
pleaded about the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates
dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991. Thereafter, the trial Court
framed issues, conducted trial and then, dismissed the suit on
31.12.2012. Therefore, unofficial respondents cannot contend
that after dismissal of the said suit, on the advice of their lawyer,
they have obtained copies of the said Occupancy Rights
40
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
Certificates and filed the aforesaid appeals only on 04.04.2013
and 10.05.2013. The said contention of the unofficial
respondents is contrary to Section 24(1) of the Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955 and principle laid down by this Court and Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgments. They are having knowledge of
the aforesaid two Occupancy Rights Certificates dated
26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 on receipt of written statement filed
by defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the said suit. Even then, they have
waited for dismissal of the said suit on 31.12.2012. Therefore,
they cannot contend that they have knowledge of the said
Occupancy Rights Certificates only on 28.03.2013 and file the
aforesaid appeals on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. The said
contention of unofficial respondents is untenable and the same
cannot be accepted.
45. As discussed supra, in terms of Section 24(1) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, they have to prefer an appeal
within 30 days or they can file an application to condone the
delay by showing sufficient cause and by explaining the day to
day delay caused in preferring the appeal. They have not
41
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
preferred appeal within 30 days and they have not even filed an
application to condone the delay. They have not even explained
the delay in memorandum of grounds of appeal, much less
satisfactory reasons.
46. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the appeals
filed by the unofficial respondents under Section 24(1) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 before the 3rd respondent are
contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 24(1) of the
Inam Abolition Act.
47. The 3rd respondent in the impugned order referred Section
17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and principle laid down by the
Apex Court in “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (died) by LRs Vs.
Jagannath (died) by LRs and Others 24″. It is relevant to note
that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with effect of
fraud or mistake. In “Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra)” the Apex
Court held that fraud vitiates everything at any stage.
24
(1994) 1 SCC 1
42
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
48. In the light of the aforesaid principle, a perusal of the
memorandum of grounds of appeal filed by the unofficial
respondents before the 3rd respondent under Section 24(1) of the
Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 would reveal that they have not
pleaded fraud and not proved the same by producing the
evidence. Their only contention in the said appeal is that the
petitioners obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificates dated
26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 without notice to the unofficial
respondents. In the entire grounds, the unofficial respondents did
not use the word ‘fraud’. Thus, they have not pleaded fraud or
they have not proved the same by producing evidence. Even
then, 3rd respondent referred Section 17 of the Limitation Act,
1963 and also placed reliance on the principle laid down in
“Chengalvaraya Naidu” (supra). Therefore, the impugned
order is contrary to the record and also principle laid down by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
49. As discussed supra, the unofficial respondents filed suit,
vide O.S.No.34 of 2004, against the petitioners seeking
declaration and recovery of possession. During pendency of the
43
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
said suit, respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.12131 of 2024 filed
an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.170 of 2011 in
O.S.No.34 of 2004, seeking permission to withdraw the said suit
against the petitioners in the said writ petition on the ground that
the plaintiffs sold the land admeasuring of Ac.3.00 acres in
Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village to defendant Nos.4 and 5 under
unregistered sale deeds on receipt of valid sale consideration and
they have also delivered the possession to them on the same day.
Ever since from the date of purchase, till today, defendant Nos.4
and 5 are in continues, peaceful, exclusive possession and
enjoyment of their purchased landed property. Defendant Nos.4
and 5 were obtained Occupancy Rights Certificates with respect
of their purchase of the land from the concerned authorities in
file No.D.Dis.IA/5418/78 dated 31.03.1991 with the knowledge
and acceptance of plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs specially and
categorically declares that ever since from the date of alienation
of the land, defendant Nos.4 and 5/respondents Nos.6 to 13 in
W.P.No.12131 of 2024 have not sought of right or gain,
whatsoever against property holding right defendant Nos.4 and 5.
44
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
Defendant 4 and 5 were made as party to the suit on the legal
advice only. The plaintiffs are decided to withdraw the suit
against defendant Nos.4 and 5 to maintain cordial relation with
them.
50. It is opt to note that they have also filed a memo dated
27.06.2011 in the said suit seeking permission of the Court to
withdraw the suit against defendant No.4 and 5. On
consideration of the same, learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar
allowed I.A.No.170 of 2011 and granted permission to
respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.12131 of 2024 to
withdraw/abandon the claim against defendant No.4 and 5.
51. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 31.12.2012.
Therefore, unofficial respondents cannot turn around and say that
the petitioners obtained the aforesaid Occupancy Rights
Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 without putting
unofficial respondents on notice. They cannot approbate and
reprobate and law does not permit the same as held by the Apex
Court in “R.N.Gosain” (supra).
45
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
52. As discussed supra, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 in O.S.No.34 of 2004
passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, unofficial
respondents preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 and the
same pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge,
Shadnagar. At the cost of reputation, it is relevant to note that
unofficial respondents filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.34 of
2004 against the petitioners herein seeking declaration of title
and recovery of possession. The same was dismissed on
31.12.2012. They have preferred the aforesaid appeal and they
have to wait for the outcome of the said appeal.
53. It is the specific contention of the petitioners in
W.P.No.15971 of 2024 that to avoid litigation from the unofficial
respondents, they have also obtained registered sale deeds
bearing document Nos.126, 127 of 84, both dated 19.01.84 and
2331 of 1989 dated 07.08.1989. Their names were also recorded
in the revenue records, they are in possession of the subject
property.
46
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
54. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.15971 of 2024 filed
three suits vide O.S.No.55, 56 and 57 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar against the
petitioners for cancellation of the aforesaid registered sale deeds
and the same were dismissed for default on 14.09.2023. The
petitioners filed copies of the said orders. Having filed the said
suits, unofficial respondents 6 to 11 should have contested the
same. Instead of prosecuting the said suits, they have invited an
order of dismissal for default dated 14.09.2023.
55. The aforesaid facts would reveal that unofficial
respondents did not prefer the aforesaid appeals challenging the
Occupancy Rights Certificates, obtained by the petitioners dated
26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 within 30 days from the date of the
said orders and they have not even filed petition to condone the
delay. They have not explained the delay in the memorandum of
grounds of appeal. They have preferred the said appeals after a
lapse of 22 and 33 years without explaining the delay. The said
aspects were not considered by the 3rd respondent in the
impugned order.
47
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
56. The 3rd respondent cannot refer Section 17 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 and principle laid down by Apex Court in
“Chengalvaraya Naidu” (supra) on fraud. At the cost of
reputation, as discussed supra, the unofficial respondents did not
even utter one word of “fraud” in the memorandum of grounds of
appeal filed by them under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of
Inams Act,1955 before the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he cannot
decide the said appeals on the ground of fraud. As held by the
Apex Court, the unofficial respondents have to plead and prove
the fraud. Mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient, they have to
plead and prove. In the present case, they have not pleaded and
they have not proved the fraud. Therefore, 3rd respondent cannot
pass impugned order on the ground of fraud.
57. Vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023, 3rd respondent
having set aside the impugned Occupancy Rights Certificates,
remanded the matter back to 4th respondent with a direction to
conduct discreet enquiry, with reference to the various revenue
records, duly verifying as to whether the land is vacant or
covered by structures while putting all the interested persons on
48
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the
said direction of 3rd respondent in the impugned order is
contradictory. On the one side, he directed the Revenue
Divisional Officer to conduct discreet enquiry and on the other
hand, he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar to
verify revenue record etc., by putting all the interested parties on
notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore,
viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 in
case No.F1/5745/2016 is contrary to record and procedure laid
down under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955,
and the principle laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in
the aforesaid judgments.
58. It is relevant to note that to obtain Occupancy Rights
Certificates, date of vesting is relevant i.e., 01.11.1973. As on
the said date, the persons who are claiming Occupancy Rights
Certificates over the subject property should establish their
possession over the subject property.
49
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
59. In the present case, the writ petitioners established their
possession over the subject property as on the said date. On
consideration of the said fact only, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Mahaboobnagar issued the above ORCS dated
26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991.
60. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel,
contended that 26.01.1981 being a republic day is a holiday,
therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubnagar cannot
issue ORC on a holiday.
61. Thus, the same would show that writ petitioners obtained
the said certificate without serving notice on the unofficial
respondents and it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Perusal of the ORC Certificate would reveal that there is no date.
After the signature, the Revenue Divisional Officer put the said
date.
62. The facts of the judgments cited by Sri E.Madan Mohan
Rao learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial
50
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
respondents in both the writ petitions, are different to the facts of
the present case.
63. There is no dispute with regard to the principle laid down
by the full Bench in the “Executive Officer, group of Temples,
Wanaparthy, Mahbubnagar Dist.” (supra), that legal heirs of
the original protected tenant are entitled for Occupancy Right
Certificates. In the present case, apart from obtaining Occupancy
Right Certificates, writ petitioners in W.P.No.15971 of 2024
have also obtained the aforesaid three registered sale deeds from
unofficial respondents in the said writ petition. Therefore, the
facts of the said case are distinguishable to the facts of the
present case.
64. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions
are allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 in file
Nos.F1/5731/2016 and F1/5745 of 2016 before the 3rd respondent
in both the writ petitions are liable to be said aside. However,
liberty is granted to the petitioners and unofficial respondents to
raise all the grounds and contentions which they have raised in
51
KL,J
W.P.Nos.12131 and 15971 of 2024
the present writ petitions, in A.S.No.7 of 2019. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 29.01.2025.
LPD
[ad_1]
Source link