Timeliness and diligence are essential in property rights claims; undue delay disqualifies petitions for relief under discretionary powers.

ORDER :

E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue any order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in appeal including order, dated 24.02.2018, Case No.F1/1828/2016 passed by respondent No.2 as well as File No.J/4080/1996, dated 06.09.1997 passed by respondent No.3 and to quash the same and consequently, allow the appeal filed before respondent No.2 to the extent as prayed for therein and to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the petitioner herein…”

2. Heard Sri Abhishek N, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, by name Thokata Nellamma, had acquired the land admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy.No.94 and Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.124, from her father-in-law, Thokatta Narsimha, who was the original inamdar of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the original inamdar- Thokatta Narsimha died on 22.02.1975 leaving behind his son Thokatta Sandaiah, the father of the petitioner herein as sole legal heir and after the death of T.Sandaiah on 17.08.1987, the mother of the petitioner by name Thokata Neelamma had succeeded to the said land but the name of Sandaiah had continued in the revenue records upto 1995- 1996 and thereafter, the name of the mother of the petitioner has appeared in the revenue records as possessor. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 30.07.2015, respondent No.5, along with others, without having any right or title whatsoever over the said land, when tried to dispossess the petitioner’s mother from the subject land, she was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.473 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, which was closed on 20.08.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the mother of the petitioner also filed O.S.No.693 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein IA.No.997/17 was filed seeking rejection of the plaint. The said I.A. was allowed and the suit was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed A.S.No.76 of 2020 and the same is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the mother of the petitioner came to know through the written statement filed by respondent No.5 herein in O.S.No.473 of 2015 that, without any possession or record as on the date of vesting, she was granted O.R.C. vide ORC No.J/4080/1996, dated 04.09.1997 after collecting premium amount and later the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, had implemented the said O.R.C., vide proceedings No.B/7979/97, dated 11.09.1997. Immediately, the mother of the petitioner had filed appeal No.F1/1828/2016 before the Joint Collector, Malkajgiri- Medchal District, seeking to set aside the said O.R.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, as per the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act , 1955 (for short “the Act, 1955”), there are two crucial dates of vesting i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 and since 20.07.1955, the Inam lands are vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances and the State became the owner of all Inam lands and no one had any right to make any claim except occupation and cultivation and that 01.11.1973 is the vesting date decided for grant of Occupancy Rights. Learned co