Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. Balayogi, J.
K. Chandra Sekhara Rao and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and Ors. - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1679 of 2008
Decided On : 20-11-2018
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 22 – Rule 4 – Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 – Limitation Act – Section 5 – Petitioner jointly purchased property to extent of village, District under agreement of sale from the legal heirs of Inamdars, as vendors failed to perform their contract and executed regular sale deeds, revision petitioner and others filed O.S. for specific performance of contract of sale and same decreed. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of said property of Ac village –Held, Delay is properly explained by petitioner as due to lack of knowledge and due to non-supply of copy of orders, , petitioner is not party to impugned proceedings while issuing occupancy rights certificate, No notice in said proceedings issued to 1st petitioner late who is co-sharer and no opportunity of hearing afforded delay is 356 days from date of knowledge i.e., supply of copy of order passed by RDO i.e., after 19.7.2000. order passed by 2nd respondent is erroneous, perverse and without considering fact that limitation starts to run from date of knowledge, there is 356 days delay, petitioners properly explained delay, appellate court did not consider settled principle of law that in view of Section 24 of the Act, Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply, order suffers from legal infirmities hence liable to be set aside – Writ petition allowed. (Para 69, 71)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner jointly purchased property to extent of village, District under agreement of sale from the legal heirs of Inamdars, as vendors failed to perform their contract and executed regular sale deeds, revision petitioner and others filed O.S. for specific performance of contract of sale and same decreed. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of said property of Ac village.
Findings of the court:
Delay is properly explained by petitioner as due to lack of knowledge and due to non-supply of copy of orders, , petitioner is not party to impugned proceedings while issuing occupancy rights certificate, No notice in said proceedings issued to 1st petitioner late who is co-sharer and no opportunity of hearing afforded delay is 356 days from date of knowledge i.e., supply of copy of order passed by RDO i.e., after 19.7.2000. order passed by 2nd respondent is erroneous, perverse and without considering fact that limitation starts to run from date of knowledge, there is 356 days delay, petitioners properly explained delay, appellate court did not consider settled principle of law that in view of Section 24 of the Act, Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply, order suffers from legal infirmities hence liable to be set aside.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
N. Balayogi, J.
1. The first Revision Petitioner-K. Chandra Sekhara Rao as the sole petitioner filed the Civil Revision Petition and after his death, petitioners 2 to 4 are substituted as Legal Representatives of the first petitioner.
2. The petitioner-late K. Chandra Sekhara Rao, aggrieved by the orders dated: 16.9.1994 in file No. J/718/94 passed by the respondent No. 3 and also orders of the respondent No. 2 in file No. F1/1188/2006, dated: 9.5.2006, preferred this Revision.
3. The brief facts of the Revision are that, the revision petitioner and three others namely, (1). Sri Ch. Anjaneya Varaprasad, (2) Smt. Leela and (3) Sri K. Seshagiri Rao have jointly purchased property to an extent of Ac. 84.35 Gts in Survey No. 222 of Gajularamaram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the agreement of sale dated: 07.9.1981 from the legal heirs of Inamdars. As the vendors failed to perform their contract and executed regular sale deeds, the revision petitioner and others filed O.S. No. 190/1987 for specific performance of contract of sale and the same was decreed on 10.3.1992. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property of Ac. 84.35 Gts in Survey No. 222 of Gajularamaram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In pursuance of the said judgment and decree, the entire sale consideration was paid to the vendors. In the meanwhile, the respondents 5 to 20 herein approached respondent No. 3 and applied for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) by creating false and fabricated documents stating that they have already entered into agreement of sale with Inamdars in the year 1973 itself.
4. The respondent No. 3-Revenue Divisional Officer (East) granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents 5 to 20 by proceedings No. J/7/18/94, dated:16.9.1994 illegally without following the procedure under the Act. After came to know of the said order, immediately, the 1st petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 and requested to supply copies of the said orders, but respondent No. 3 refused to furnish the certified copies in spite of repeated requests.
Thereafter, the petitioner, having no other go, filed Writ Petition No. 3521 of 1999 and the High Court vide orders dated: 13.4.1999 directed respondent No. 3 to supply certified copies of the order and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 furnished certified copies through post after 19.7.2000. After receiving the certified copies of the order, due to ill-health and old age, the revision petitioner was bed ridden for more than seven months and not in a position to move. Therefore, he filed an appeal questioning the proceedings with a delay of 356 days. The said delay is neither willful nor wanton, but it is only due to ill-health. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District passed final orders on 29.6.2004 allowing the appeal by setting aside the orders of the respondent No. 3 and remanded back the matter for fresh consideration.
5. The respondent No. 3 granted Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents 5 to 20 basing on the alleged deed of assignment dated: 6.5.1993 which is fake and fabricated. As per section 17 of Registration Act, a deed of assignment in respect of immovable property is compulsorily registerable and unless it is registered, they cannot claim any right or interest in the immovable property.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated: 29.6.2004, the respondents 21 and 22 filed C.R.P. No. 4601/2005 and the same was allowed on 27.1.2006 remitting back the matter to the respondent No. 2-Joint Collector to pass comprehensive order dealing with the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioner and also to record a finding on the application of condonation of delay.
7. The respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the delay satisfactorily in filing the appeal. Even though the High Court directed the respondent No. 2 to pass orders on merits,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
