ORDER :-The land in Sy.No.143 of Doolapally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was held as inam by one, Sri B. Ranga Reddy. It was in the enjoyment of one Mr. Gyara Venkaiah. It is stated that in the family partition it was allotted to Gyara Laxmaiah, the son of Venkaiah. Laxmaiah, in turn, sold two acres of land in favour of Sri Poshetty Gandaiah, and the petitioner purchased two acres from Gandaiah in the year 1985. On an application made by the petitioner, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, the 2nd respondent, issued Occupancy Right Certificate (for short the 'ORC') in favour of the petitioner, through order dated 7.5.1997.

2. The wife of late Gyara Laxmaiah, the 4th respondent, and their daughters, respondents 5 to 8 and two brothers of Gyara Laxmaiah, respondents 9 and 10, filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent, against the order dated 7.5.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent. Since the appeal was presented after expiry of more than a decade, they filed a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay. On receiving the notices in the appeal, the petitioner raised several objections. Through order dated 20.12.2008, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings before the 1st respondent, and still an appeal preferred after 11 years was entertained. He contends that even assuming that the 1st respondent is conferred with the power to condone the delay, he did not pass any order to the effect that the delay is condoned, much less any reasons were assigned. Learned Counsel further contends that through a catena of decisions, this Court held that the transferee from a person holding an inam land, is entitled to apply for ORC, and the view taken by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal is erroneous.

4. On behalf of the respondents 4 to 10, a caveat is filed. Their Counsel, Sri Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha, submits that his clients could not present the appeal in time, since they were not aware of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in favour of the petitioner. He contends that the 1st respondent made a specific reference to the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the appeal was allowed after taking into account, the various objections raised by the petitioner. He submits that the order passed by the 1st respondent does not warrant interference.

5. Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order in accordance with law, and in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act.

6. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.12.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, mainly on two grounds: the first is that the appeal filed by the respondents 4 to 10 ought not to have been entertained by the 1st respondent, since it is presented II years after the 2nd respondent passed an order, granting ORC. The second is that the view taken by the 1st respondent, that a transferee of an inam land cannot apply for ORC; cannot be sustained in law.

7. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Mr. Gandaiah, and the latter in turn purchased from Laxmaiah. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of ORC, since what was purchased is an inam land. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 7.5.1997, granting the ORC in favour of the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act provides for an appeal by a party, aggrieved by, grant or denial of ORC. 60 days is stipulated as the period of limitation. The order dated 3.5.1997 discloses that a general notification calling for objections from individuals was issued through notice in Form-II. It appears that no o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document