The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely filing of appeals and the necessity of providing a valid explanation for any delay. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation and the need for parties to participate in proceedings in good faith.

ORDER :

A. Abhishek Reddy, J.

1. Seeking to call for the records pertaining to proceedings in case No. F1/74/2019 dated 06.06.2020 of respondent No. 2 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is being taken up and disposed of on merits.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that land in survey No. 145 totally admeasuring Acs. 7-29 guntas situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is an Inam Dastagardan land. That one Syed Mohd. Hyder Hassan was the inamdar of the said land, whereas one Lankala Mallaiah @ Malta Reddy was in physical possession of the said land. Accordingly, the names of the above persons were recorded as inamdar and possessor of the subject land respectively in the pahames including the pahani for the year 1973-74. It is the case of the petitioners that one Mohammed Hussain filed a suit in O.S. No. 57/1 of 1950-51 before the Munsif Magistrate, West Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the possessor Sri Lankala Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy from the land in survey Nos. 145, 146, 156, 157 and 158 of Manchirevula Village and for recovery of lease amount from him on the ground that he failed to pay the lease amount. The said suit was partly decreed directing payment of kaul and rejecting the relief seeking eviction of Sri Lankala Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy. Thereafter, the names of respective legal representatives of Inamdar and Lankala Mallaiah were recorded in the revenue records. While so, Lankala Narayana Reddy S/o. Lankala Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy filed an application dated 04.12.1997 in Form-1 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1995 (sic 1955) (for short 'the Inam Abolition Act'), and the Rules made thereunder, for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC). After issuing notices to all the interested parties and calling for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, ORC has been granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide file No. L/795/98 dated 03.11.2001. Thereafter, said Lankala Narayana Reddy has sold the land admeasuring Acs. 7-29 guntas in survey No. 145 for a valuable consideration vide registered document Nos. 694 of 2003 and 695 of 2003 and the petitioners were put in physical and lawful possession of the same. Subsequently, the petitioners along with adjoining land have developed the land into an integrated layout of residential plots and sold to third parties through registered sale deeds. Later, the said plots were regularized under LRS Scheme by HMDA. It is further stated that respondent No. 5 suppressing all these material facts including granting of ORC in favour of Lankala Narayana Reddy, had submitted an application dated 20.02.2015 in Form VI-A before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar-respondent No. 4, in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 4-25 guntas in survey No. 145 (subject land) seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records basing on the certificate purported to have been issued under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Tenancy Act'), dated 15.05.1975 issued by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. That without considering the inordinate delay in filing the application seeking mutation, the respondent No. 4 had numbered the case vide No. D/135/2015 and allowed the prayer of the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 04.05.2017. Petitioners have challenged the same before respondent No. 3, who vide proceedings No. C/1502/2017 dated 25.08.2018 has allowed the appeal. It is further stated that the order dated 25.08.2018 in file No. C/1602/2017, passed by the respondent No. 3 was not challenged and the same has become final. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act before respondent No. 2 challenging the grant of ORC in favour of Lankala Narayana reddy vide file No. L/795/1998 dated 03.11.2001. The responden