The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fraud.

ORDER:

K. SARATH, J.

As both these writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D1/5951/2008 dated 12.12.2014, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

3. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.24536 of 2015 is taken as a lead case.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submits that originally one Sri Gopal Rao Deshmukh was the Inamdar of lands bearing Sy.Nos.330 admeasuring Ac.6-09 gts, Sy.No.335 admeasuring Ac.17.26 gts, Sy.No.338 admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts, Sy.No.339 admeasuring Ac.6- 03 gts, Sy.No.340 admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts and Sy.No.369 admeasuring Ac.0.33 gts situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said lands are Inam Dasthagardan lands.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the paternal grandfather of petitioner, by name Gunda Veeranna, was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands as protected tenant during his lifetime and after his demise, his two sons namely Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa have succeeded the said lands and the Inams Tribunal has granted Occupancy Rights Certificates in their favour in the year 1975-76 and their names were entered in the revenue records as pattadars of the above said lands as per their shares since 1978 onwards. He submits that in the said Certificates, the land to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was not incorporated either by mistake or by inadvertence, however mutation in respect of said lands was effected in favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa along with the other lands in the year 1978-79. After demise of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa, the petitioners in two writ petitions have succeeded the tenancy rights over the said lands and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the course of time, the land to an extent of Ac.2-02 gts in Sy.No.330 was sold to the third parties through registered sale deeds, converted the said land into residential plots and also constructed residential houses. While it being so, after a period of 30 years, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed revision petition in the year, 2008, for correction of entries in the pahanies from the year 1978-79 onwards regarding the land to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He further submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have no right or title over the subject lands. The respondent No.2 allowed the said revision directing the respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders as per provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act, 1971’). Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order itself is illegal on the ground that the revision was filed after a lapse of more than 30 years without any condone delay petition and it is barred by limitation.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 without filing appeal under the ROR Act, 1971 have directly filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the respondent No.2-Joint Collector has entertained the revision petition and passed impugned order and the same is not maintainable. The respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and ought no