IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish possession for grant of Occupancy Rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and the discretion of the appellate authority to entertain appeals under Sec. 24 after a delay, subject to showing sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri P.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and Sri Kuriti Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 14.

2. The above Writ Petition was filed questioning the order passed by respondent No.2 in case No.F1/5550/2013, dtd. 25/3/2014, setting aside the order, dtd. 20/9/2000, passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No.J/1735/2000 and remanding the matter back to respondent No.3 to re-examine the case of the protected tenants.

3. The brief undisputed facts, that are relevant for disposal of the present Writ Petition, are as under:-

4. One Sri Kallem Bal Reddy, was recorded as occupant and protected tenant of the land admeasuring Acs.27.30 gts., and Acs.2.17 gts, situated in Sy.Nos.88 and 257 of Balapur Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners herein made a claim for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short 'ORC') under Sec. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') claiming that the subject land belongs to Sri Kallem Bal Reddy and his two brothers namely Sri Kallem Yella Reddy and Sri Kallem Malla Reddy and Sri Kallem Bal Reddy being the head of the family and eldest son, the subject land was shown in the name of Sri Kallem Bal Reddy in the Revenue records on behalf of the entire family. It is also claimed that the subject land has fallen to the share of Sri Kallem Malla Reddy in the family Settlement that took place in the year 1952.

5. The petitioners herein are claiming to be the grandsons of late Sri Kallem Malla Reddy and the subject property was stated to have been bequeathed to the petitioners herein by the said Sri Kallem Malla Reddy under a Will, dtd. 2/7/1991. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to avoid any future complications, the petitioners got a Sale Deed executed by the original Inamdar in respect of the subject property under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 21/9/1970, vide document No.1260/1970. It is further claimed that the petitioners herein have declared the subject property as the land belonging to them under in the declarations that are filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act, 1976') and the same was also computed in the holding of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners claiming to have been in possession of the subject land submitted an application, dtd. 17/7/2000, under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955, in Form-1 claiming to be the protected tenants of the subject land for grant of ORC. The said application submitted by the petitioners was considered by respondent No.3 and an order was passed in proceedings No.J/1735/2000, dtd. 20/9/2000, granting Occupancy Rights in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the subject land.

6. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, respondent Nos.5 to 12, who are the legal representatives of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy filed an appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, before respondent No.2 herein on 11/11/2013. The said appeal was entertained by respondent No.2 and the impugned order, dtd. 25/3/2014, was passed setting aside the proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration after putting all the parties on notice. Aggrieved by the said order, dtd. 25/3/2014, the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, was erroneously entertained by respondent No.2 after a lapse of thirteen years without there being any application for condonation of delay. According to learned counsel for the petitioners any appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, is required to be filed within