Delay in challenging occupancy rights undermines legal integrity; authorities must provide reasons for judicial decisions.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer in W.P.Nos.14112 of 2014 as under :

“to call for records pertaining to the order dated 01.02.2014 passed in Case No.F1/2200/2009, from the office of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the said order by issuing a writ or direction more particularly writ of Certiorari and declaring the same as arbitray, void, illegal and without jurisdiction.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

3. The relevant portion of the orders impugned dated 01.02.2014 in Case No.F1/2200/ 2009, reads as under

The ORC holders are denying the claim of the appellants in both the appeals and even the Protected Tenancy of their ancestors. A Certified Copy of the P.T. Register for the year 1950 of Bowenpally Vg, relating to Old Sy. No.17 filed by the appellants issued by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal reveals that in Col. No.9 of the said register meant for the PT. the names of the P.Ts are found recorded with the area of Ac.10-19 gts, each occupied by them as detailed in Col.No. 10 of the said P.T. Register. A perusal of the certified copy of the orders under appeal vide Ret.No.A1/1233/75 dt. 11.1975 and signed on 31.10.1975 by the RDO, Hyd. West Divn. shows that it categorically says that there are no protected tenants over the suit land. This version of the RDO is contrary to the contents of the said Certified Copy of P.T. Register relating to Old Sy.No.17 of Bowenpally. This position of the records is evident that proper enquiry was not conducted by the lower court before issuing the orders under appeal and that no notice was given to the appellants herein as well as to the LRs of the Inamdars and their lineal descendants also.

In the light of above position of facts & records I have no hesitation to set aside the order under appeal passed by the then RDO Hyd. West Divn. in File No.At/1233/75 dt. 11.1979 (signed by RDO on 31.10.1979) granting ORC in favours of the Inamdars / LRs being successors- in-interest in respect of land bearing Sy No.36 (Old Sy.No.17/1 & 17/2) and the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Lower Court with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry by issuing notices to all the appellants & Respondents in both the appeals including the legal heirs & co-parceners of the Inamdars as well as the appellants herein giving wide publicity of the enquiry & pass appropriate orders duly examining the aspect of protected tenancy claimed over the said lands. Accordingly both the appeals are disposed of.”

4. The relevant paragraph Nos. 5 and 7, of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.6, 7 and 8 herein in W.P.No.16686 of 2014, which had been filed by one D.S.N. Raju and 23 others seeking an identical relief as in the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the orders impugned of the 1^st Respondent in Case No.F1/ 2200/ 2009 and Case No.F1/7122/2009, dated 01.02.2014 whereby and where under the 2nd Respondent herein had set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate in File No.A/1233/1975, dated 28.11.1979, reads as under :

“5. I submit that our grandfather, Sri Nallolla Balaram died intestate leaving behind his four sons and one daughter namely 1) N. Rajaiah (Re