SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 588

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
D. Srikanth Reddy and Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Joint Collector and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 4623 of 2010
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Prakash Reddy, Mr N. Ranga Rao.
For the Respondents: Sri. Veerababy Gandu.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate delay in invoking statutory provisions can lead to the rejection of an application, and settled transactions should not be disturbed after a long period of time.

Headnote:

Inam Abolition Act - Land Dispute - Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - The court discussed the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate and the procedure for issue of the certificate. It also considered the delay in filing the appeal and the legal principles regarding the exercise of power within a reasonable time.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, regarding a land dispute. The unofficial respondents filed an appeal against the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate after a delay of more than 17 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay without reasonable explanation. It also noted that the Occupancy Rights Certificate had been issued to the petitioners based on a registered sale deed, and the unofficial respondents could not question the certificate without taking steps for the cancellation of the sale deed.

Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the appeal, the validity of the Occupancy Rights Certificate, and the legal rights of the parties involved in the land dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of a statute should result in the rejection of an application. It emphasized the principle that settled transactions cannot be disturbed after a long period of time.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the petitioners.

ORDER :

Heard the learned senior designate counsel, Sri Prakash Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri Veerababu Gandu, appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents No.3 to 11.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a direction, writ order, one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate orders calling for the records and to set aside the impugned orders dated 02.01.2010 passed in file No.F1/3148/2008 on the file of the 1st respondent Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District as the same is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

a) The unofficial respondents 3 to 11 have filed an appeal bearing No. F1/3148/2008 before the 1st respondent Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District against the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in file No.L/4308 of 1990, dated 25.03.1991, in respect of the land bearing Survey No.17 admeasuring Ac.0.28 guntas and Survey No.22 admeasuring Ac.0.12 guntas, in total Ac.1.00 gts situated at Injaur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for which the petitioners filed detailed counter stating that the appeal is filed after lapse of more than 17 years without filing any condonation of delay petition and also not filed date of knowledge affidavit and there is abnormal delay for filing the appeal. As per Section 24 of the Inam Abolition Act, the appeal time is 30 days. The 1st respondent has remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for denovo enquiry, without conducting proper enquiry and without considering the facts and legal position.

b) One Balaiah and Sailoo sons of Lachaiah were the recorded Inamdars of the land bearing Survey No.17, Ac.0.28 gts and Survey No.22, Ac.0.12 gts in total Ac.1.00 gts situated at Injapur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having half share each. Balaiah died in the year 1983 and later on his wife Smt Gngamma also died. The said Balaiah was not having any male issues except one daughter Smt Jangamma @ Jayamma and her marriage took place in the year 1973 and they got four sons i.e. respondents 3 to 6. The Balaiah adopted his own brother Sailoo’s son by name Balaiah.

c) Respondents 3 to 11 filed registered Will before the appellate authority that Balaiah’s wife Smt Gangamma executed the same bequeathing the subject lands and other properties in favour of her daughter Jayamma @ Jangamma.

d) The inamdars in need of money for their family necessities, approached the petitioners and sold the same under Agreement of sale dated 25.04.1990 for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. At the time of agreement of sale, respondents 3 to 11 are minors. Later on, Smt Jangamma executed registered sale deed on 26.07.1990 vide document No.9482/1990 in favour of the petitioners.

e) After purchase of the said, the petitioners came to know that the subject lands are inam lands. As such the petitioners approached the Inams Tribunal i.e. The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, as successors in interest of inamdars. Necessary notices were issued to all the inamdars. After receiving notices, the inamdars given no objection for issuance of ORC. Therefore, after completing formalities, M.R.O and RDO issued Occupancy Rights Certificate on5.03.1991.

f) Smt Jangamma died in the year 2007 and till such time no claim was made by anybody. But after death of Jangamma, her legal heirs filed appeal before the 1st respondent. In the said appeal the 1st respondent set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate and remitted to the 2nd respondent for denovo enquiry.

g) After purchase of the property, the petitioners developed the said lands and invested hard earned money and loan from bank and constructed poultry sheds, godowns, labourer room, dairy shed after obtaining necessa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top