A challenge to the conferment of occupancy rights under the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, filed after an inordinate delay of 17 years, is non-maintainable when the claimants have previously acted upon the order by executing sale deeds derived from the same division of property.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.2/Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings No.F1/876/2014, dated 28-09-2015 filed Appeal under Section 24 of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, aggrieved by the orders passed by Respondent No.3 in File No.L/1403/1996 dated 25-10-1997 is arbitrary, illegal and against the Principles of Natural Justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents and Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. G.Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned counsel for respondent No.13.

3. Brief Facts:

One Begari Gangamma, W/o. Rajaiah, R/o. Nanakramguda Village (mother of petitioners), filed a claim petition in Form I before Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on 17.11.1994 for grant of occupancy rights of 1/3rd share in survey numbers, situated at Nanakramguda Village in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas, Ac.1.33 guntas and Ac.0.15 guntas in Sy.Nos.88/E, 90 and 55/AA respectively (totaling to an extent of Acs.6.02 guntas/Acs.5.39 guntas) [(Acs.6.02 guntas (as claimed by petitioner) (Acs.5.39 guntas as reflected from the material on record)]. Along with the claim petition, Begari Gangamma filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and annexed certified copies of pahanies for the years 1954-55, 1955-58, and 1973-74 and xerox copy of certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92, in support of her claim.

4. RDO, upon considering the submissions made by counsels and the material on record, vide order dated 25.10.1997, conferred occupancy rights under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act, 1955’), in respect of the subject property on Begari Maisaiah, Begari Yellaiah and Begari Gangamma, who are the successors and shareholders, on payment of premium amount. Begari Gangamma, W/o. Rajaiah (mother of petitioners) was conferred occupancy rights to an extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas (Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.55/AA, Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.88/E and Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.90). Begari Maisaiah was conferred occupancy rights to an extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas (Ac.0.05 guntas in S.No.55/AA, Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.88/E, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.90). Begari Maisaiah was conferred occupancy rights to an extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas (Ac.0.05 guntas in S.No.55/AA, Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.88/E, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.90).

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that against the order of RDO dated 25.10.1997, an appeal was preferred under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, and that the appellate authority wrongly concluded that petitioners herein had information about conferring of occupancy rights in favour of Begari Maisaiah and Begari Yellaiah. It is further submitted that petitioners never had knowledge and that they were minors at that point of time. It is also submitted that petitioners were illiterates and had no knowledge about all these proceedings and that Begari Maisaiah and Begari Yellaiah does not deserve to be conferred occupancy rights to the extent of 1/3rd share of subject land.

6. It is submitted that no opportunity was granted to petitioners, who are the