ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Govardhana Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel on record for the respondent Nos.4, 8 to 11; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents. Perused the record including the grounds under revision.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 28 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act, 1955”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1–Additional Collector (Revenue), Nagarkurnool District, in Appeal No.F2/586/2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed and the proceedings dated 12.02.2009 of Respondent No.2 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of land admeasuring Ac.9.27 guntas in Survey No.13 of Gouraram Village, Telkapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (for short “subject property”) were confirmed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the appellate authority.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the present case is as follows:

a) The subject lands are Balavatha Inam Lands, in respect of which late Smt. Vadla Narayanamma, the ancestor of the petitioners, was the Inamdar.

b) The present revision arises out of proceedings concerning grant of occupancy rights in respect of the subject property under the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, granted in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8.

c) The petitioners claim rights through said late Smt. Vadla Narayanamma, who, according to them, was the pattadar and person entitled to the subject property. It is their case that Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the Act, 1955 and ultimately granted an Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by proceedings dated 12.02.2009 in File No.I/581/2007.

d) The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the proceedings culminating in the grant of ORC were conducted without issuing notice to them and without affording them any opportunity of participation in the enquiry. According to them, the order dated 12.02.2009 was never communicated and they remained unaware of the grant of occupancy rights for several years. It is their case that they acquired knowledge of the said proceedings only subsequently when disputes arose concerning the property and, immediately thereafter, originally, the son of late Narayanamma namely, Late Ramaswamy, approached the appellate authority under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 questioning the legality and validity of the ORC. However, even before the appeal was numbered, said Ramaswamy expired and that thereafter, the petitioners continued the appeal proceedings.

e) Before the appellate authority, the petitioners questioned not only the entitlement of the beneficiaries to claim occupancy rights but also the validity of the proceedings themselves. It was specifically contended that the proceedings suffered from serious procedural irregularities, violation of statutory requirements, denial of principles of natural justice and circumstances suggestive of fraud and manipulation of official records.

f) The private respondents opposed the appeal and defended the grant of occupancy rights while contending that the appeal itself was liable to be rejected on account of extraordinary delay.

g) Upon consideration of the matter, Respondent No.1, by order dated 27.12.2022, dismissed the appeal principally on the ground that it had been preferred nearly ten years after grant of the Occupancy Rights Certificate and was therefore barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present revision.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioners:

5. Sri D.Govardhan