CRP/2603/2009 of D. Ravindra Chary Vs Karpakulagolla Ramaiah , Ramuloo on 30 December 2009

ORDER:

1 This revision is directed against the order dated 21.04.2009 passed by theJoint Collector i.e. the first Respondent herein in case No.F2/IA 20/2008whereby the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitionersunder Section 24(1) of A.P (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the orderdated 09.06.2003 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Wanaparthy i.e.fourth Respondent herein.

2 Brief facts that led to filing of the present revision are that originally thegrand father of the revision Petitioners by name Venkata Ramulu was theinamdar and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.13.19 guntas and Ac.1.21guntas in Sy.Nos.345 and 346 respectively of Chilimila village, PebbairMandal, who purchased the said lands in the year 1951 i.e. prior to theAbolition of Inams Act came into force and by virtue of the said purchase theRights and interest of original inamdar have been inherited by said VenkataRamulu and his name was recorded in ROR books and also in Kasra Pahanisin respect of the lands in the above two survey numbers.

3 However, as per the letter submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer,Pebbair in C/5020/2006, dated 25.06.2006 stating that D. Ramaswamy son ofthe original inamdar Venkata Ramulu sold the lands in the above two surveynumbers to Golla Ramulu and Golla Laxmanna and by virtue of the saidpurchase of the lands in the above two survey numbers, Occupancy RightsCertificates were issued in favour of the said Golla Ramulu and GollaLaxmanna under Inam Abolition Act and also for being in possession andenjoyment of the above said lands since 1985.

4 The grievance of the Petitioners is that since they are the grand sons ofsaid Venkata Ramulu, they are entitled to inherit the said property. It is theirfurther contention that some of the villagers of Chilimilla village had forged thesignature of their father D. Ramaswamy and fabricated the documents of salesaid to have been executed by Ramaswamy, who is the son of said Venkata Ramulu and that the said documents were brought into existence after theenforcement of A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and on the basis ofthose illegal documents, the unofficial Respondents had obtained theOccupancy Rights Certificates from the Revenue Divisional officer,Wanaparthy.

5 As aggrieved by the said issuance of ORCs in favour of the Respondents1 and 2 herein in File No.B/678/2003 & B/679/2003 dated 09.06.2003 by theRevenue Divisional Officer, the revision Petitioners approached the JointCollector by way of an appeal. Since there is a delay of 74 days in preferringthe said appeal, the revision petitioners also filed an application to condone thesaid delay. However, the same was dismissed by the Joint Collector holdingthat the delay is not properly explained and further as per the documents onrecord, the first revision Petitioners and their father Ramswamy had enteredinto a mutual agreement with the Respondents 1 and 2 on 08.01.2003 for saleof the schedule property and stated that they had no objection if the purchaserswould be granted ORCs by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy. TheJoint Collector further observed that even after affording sufficient time andthough several adjournments were given to the Petitioners they failed toexplain the reasons of delay and sought further time. As stated supra,aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by the Joint Collector, thePetitioners approached this court and filed the present revision.

6 Heard both sides.

6 Heard both sides.

7 Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that theRevenue Divisional Officer did not give notice to the revision Petitioners beforegranting the ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 herein basing on thefabricated documents put up by them and no body was examined to prove thegenuineness of the said sale deeds. He further contended that the JointCollector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer have erred in granting theORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 when the name of the originalinamdar i.e. Venkata Ramulu who is the grand father of the revision Petitionersappears in the revenue records. The learned counsel further contended that theJoint Collector erred in holding that there is a delay of four years and four months in filing the appeal, but, in fact, the delay has to be calculated from thedate of knowledge only, which in the instant case is only 74 days and the sameought to have been condoned if sufficient cause is shown.

8 On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2contended that the order passed by the Joint Collector is based on soundreasons and needs no interference.

9 I find force in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for thepetitioners, for the reason that the delay has to be calculated from the date ofknowledge. As could be seen from the record, it appears, the Petitioners havingcome to know about the issuance of the ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1and 2 have applied for certified copies in the month of August 2007 and afterobtaining the certified copies in the month of September 2007 the Petitionersfiled appeal in December 2007. Hence there is delay of 74 days only.

10 Even otherwise, since it is the contention of the revision Petitioners thatthe documents basing upon which the ORCs were issued in favour of theRespondents 1 and 2 are fictitious documents and nobody was examined toprove the genuineness of the said sale deeds, in my considered view, the JointCollector ought to have decided the matter on merits by condoning the delay.So that the petitioners and the respondents in whose favour the occupancyright certificates have been issued would have been in a position to explain asto whether the said occupancy right certificates issued in favour of respondents1 and 2 are on the basis of genuine documents or fabricated documents. Further, when substantive rights are involved, in my considered view, the delaywould not be a factor to reject the case of the petitioners, particularly, when thedelay is calculated as 74 days.

11 Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, andinasmuch as the Petitioners contend that the documents basing upon which theORCs have been issued in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 are brought updocuments, I condone the delay of 74 days in preferring the appeal and that theJoint Collector is directed to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders afteraffording a fair and reasonable opportunity to both parties, but on certainconditions.

12 Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order passed by the JointCollector in Case No. F2/IA 20/2008 dated 21.04.2009 is set aside on conditionof the Petitioners paying costs of an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to A.P. State Legal Services Authoritywithin a period of two weeks from today. The appellate authority i.e. the JointCollector is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal after affording anopportunity of being heard to both parties and also by taking into considerationthe documentary evidence that may be put up both parties. It is needless toobserve that the Petitioners as well as the Respondents 1 and 2 are liberty toventilate their grievance before the Joint Collector to establish their case.Further, the Joint Collector is hereby directed not to get influenced by any of thefindings or observations made by this court in this revision. He can exercise hisown discretion in coming to the conclusion as to whether the appeal is to beallowed or dismissed. No costs.

kvsn

---------------

30-12-2009