Reopening concluded legal proceedings after several decades without a statutory basis or condonation of delay constitutes an abuse of process and is without jurisdiction, especially when the original order attained finality.

O R D E R:

The case of petitioners is that the 2nd petitioner purchased the subject land admeasuring Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.212 situated at Irusulapuram Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District from the rightful owner for valuable consideration on 15-05-1961 and was in possession and enjoyment thereof. Thereafter, the property was given to the 1st petitioner and her name was mutated in the revenue records and she was issued old and new pattadar pass books and title deeds. The then incumbent of the 3rd respondent initiated suo motu proceedings alleging violation of Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 and Regulation 1 of 1970 and issued Form-E notice, and after detailed enquiry in Case No.1841/1974, the 3rd respondent by order dated 24-09-1975 dismissed the proceedings, taking into consideration the deposition of the vendor of the 2nd petitioner, who admitted that sale had taken place 15 years prior to his deposition, thereby confirming that the transaction was much prior to coming into force of Regulation 1 of 1970 with effect from 03-02-1970 and Regulation 1 of 1959 in Telangana area with effect from 01-12-1963.

1.1. It is the further case of petitioners that after more than 63 years from the date of purchase and nearly five decades after the order dated 24-09-1975 in Case No.1841/1974, the 4th respondent filed representation dated 29-01-2024 claiming to be the son of the vendor and alleging that the purchase was during 1978-79 and sought eviction of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd respondent entertained the said representation, treated it as an Appeal, numbered it as I.A.No.4 of 2024 and issued notice dated 07-12-2024 directing appearance on 12-12-2024. Petitioners therefore, appeared and placed all the facts before the 2nd respondent, however the latter continued the enquiry and posted the matter for further hearing, which action is challenged.

1.2. Petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent erred in entertaining the representation dated 29-01-2024 without any material to establish the relationship between the vendor of the 2nd petitioner and the 4th respondent. The transaction dated 15-05-1961 is not hit by Regulation 1 of 1970 or Regulation 1 of 1959 as both came into force subsequent to the transaction. It is also contended that under Regulation 7, limitation applies and the 4th respondent did not file any application for condonation of delay nor explain the delay of 48 years 2 months and 5 days. Under Regulation 3(3), an Appeal has to be filed within 60 days and in the absence of any Appeal in the eye of law, the representation could not have been entertained. It is also contended that in Case No.1841/1974 dated 24-09-1975, the sale was admitted and found to be prior to Regulation 1 of 1970 , hence, the present representation is an abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 are intended to protect tribal interests and cannot be used as a tool for speculative litigation for unlawful enrichment. The action of the 2nd respondent, according to petitioners, amounts to colourable exercise of power and subjects the petitioner to unending litigation.

2. This Court by order dated 21.01.2025, granted stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the notice dated 07-12-2024 issued in I.A.No. 4 of 2024 on the file of Respondent No.2 pertaining to the subject property till 10.02.2025 and the said order was extended from time to time.

3. Per contra, the 4th respondent in the counter states that he belongs