JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard Mr. A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.19254 of 2002 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 17.07.1999 passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar.

4. The dispute pertains to Ac.0.11 guntas of land situated in Survey No.333 of Nagerkurnool in Mahabubnagar District (briefly ‘the subject land’ hereinafter).

5. One D.Srinivas Rao was the inamdar of the subject land; through him, appellant had acquired title and possession of the subject land by way of succession. In this connection, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagerkurnool (respondent No.2) had by way of proceedings dated 20.01.1978 granted Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) in favour of the appellant as per Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (briefly ‘Abolition of Inams Act’ hereinafter) read with Rule 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (briefly ‘Abolition of Inams Rules’ hereinafter).

6. After nineteen years of grant of ORC, Mandal Revenue Officer of Nagerkurnool i.e., respondent No.3 preferred appeal before the Joint Collector (respondent No.1) under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act against the order dated 20.01.1978. By the impugned order dated 17.07.1999, Joint Collector condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.01.1978 in respect of the subject land holding the same to be not an inam land. This order came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19254 of 2002.

7. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 14.11.2011 set aside the order dated 17.07.1999 as well as the ORC dated 20.01.1978 and remanded the matter back to the Joint Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law and till such time to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.19254 of 2002, petitioner has filed the present appeal.

8. We may mention that respondents have not assailed certain findings recorded by the learned Single Judge by way of writ appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to various contours of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that there was no justification for condoning the delay of nineteen years by the learned Single Judge by first construing the delay to be of four years and then holding that the said delay could not be held to have been caused due to deliberate inaction. Learned Single Judge had recorded as a finding of fact that the subject land is an inam land and that one Srinivasa Rao Deshpande, the great grandfather of the appellant was the inamdar. Learned Single Judge also held that there was no material before the Joint Collector to have set aside the ORC. Having held so, learned Single Judge herself proceeded to set aside the ORC.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the ORC at page 26 of the paper book which contains two plots of land; one in survey No.369; the other in Survey No.333, which is the subject land. In so far the other portion of the land in Survey No.369 is concerned, the ORC granted in favour of the successors of the inamdar has been affirmed by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 09.11.2005 passed in W.A.No.321 of 2001 and batch. Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid decision of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He therefore, submits that order of the learned Single Judge, which is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, is liable to be set aside.

10. On the