CRP/279/2010 of Samala Raji Reddy Vs The Joint Collector-I on 31 December 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.279 & 1700 of 2010

Date:31.12.2014

Between:

Samala Raji Reddy and another.

..... Petitioners.

AND

The Joint Collector-1, RangaReddy District and others.

.....Respondents.

The Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.279 & 1700 of 2010COMMON ORDER:

Petitioners in both the revisions are respondents 1 & 2 in Case Nos.F1/2071/2009 & F1/2072/2009, dated02-01-2010, on the file of Joint Collector-1, Ranga ReddyDistrict and respondents 3 & 4 in CRP No.279/2010 areappellants in Case No.F1/2072/2009 & respondents 3 to 6in CRP No.1700/2010 are appellants in CaseNo.F1/2071/2009, dated 02-01-2010.

2. Both the revisions are filed by the petitionerschallenging the above orders dated 02-01-2010 on the file of Joint Collector-I, Range Reddy, whereunder the lowerauthority has condoned delay in filing the appeals.

3. Brief facts leading to these two revisions are asfollows:- According to revision petitioners, the petitioners herein filedthe above application contending that the orders of the lowerauthority in File Nos.J/2892/93 & J/2894/93, dated 25-08-1993 areobtained without their knowledge and they came to know about theorders only on 10-02-2009 when the revision petitioners herein triedto erect a fence by showing the said order and on that, theypreferred the appeals. The learned appellate authority i.e., JointCollector, Ranga Reddy District, after considering the material heldthat there is prima facie fraud in obtaining Occupancy RightCertificates from the lower Court, therefore, a detailed examinationof the issue is required and considering the same, condoned delay inpreferring the appeals and allowed the applications. Aggrieved bythe same, present revision are preferred.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. Advocate for revision petitioners contended that the lowerauthority granted occupancy right certificates in the year 1993 andafter lapse of 15 years, the respondents 3 & 4 have filed thisapplication and the Joint Collector, without any valid reason andwithout any sufficient cause, condoned long delay of 15 years. Hesubmitted that the respondents 3 & 4 sold the property to thepetitioners, therefore, they cannot contend that they have noknowledge and therefore, the order of the Joint Collector is notlegal. He relied on a decision in Koyya Veerraju vs. MandalRevenue Officer, Gollaprolu[[1]]whereunder this Court observedthat suo motu powers can be exercised within a reasonable time, but not after long time and in that case, delay of 25 years is condoned,which was found incorrect by this Court, while exercising the powersunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that case, themutations and alienations were questioned, after long delay andconsidering those facts, this Court observed keeping silent for overa decade is not correct and it is not open to question the mutationsand alienations.

6. In this case, as seen from the material papers and the affidavitof the respondents 3 & 4, they came to know about the orders of thelower Court only on 10-02-2009 when the petitioners herein tried toerect fencing over the land by showing the orders of the lowerCourt. Objection is taken in the counter contending that thepetitioners failed to explain day to day delay in filing the appeals andthat the first respondent i.e., third respondent herein was in abroadon 10-02-2009 and disputed erection of fencing on 10-02-2009 isincorrect.

But the fact remains though an order was obtained in the year 1993till 2009, there was no attempt to put any fencing or enter into thedisputed land. When the affidavit of the respondents 3 & 4 disclosethat they have knowledge only on 10-02-2009 about this impugnedorder dated 25-08-1993, no material is produced to show that therespondents 3 & 4 i.e., petitioners before the Joint Collector haveknowledge of the orders dated 25-08-1993 prior to 10-02-2009. When valuable rights are involved and when the appellate authorityclearly held that there is prima facie fraud in obtaining occupancyright certificates dated 25-08-1993, the matter requires a thoroughenquiry on the ground of technicalities, such valuable rights cannotbe left unheard, particularly when the lower authority observed thatthere is prima facie material for fraud. Considering these aspects, Iam of the view that learned Joint Collector has rightly condoneddelay and gave opportunity to respondents 3 & 4 herein to challenge the impugned order dated 25-08-1993 through which, occupancyright certificates were granted in favour of the revision petitionersherein. However, since the matter is old, I feel that a time frame hasto be fixed to the appellate authority for deciding the matter to showthat no further loss of time would occur.

7. For these reasons, revisions are dismissed confirming theorder of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 02-01-2010and the Joint Collector is directed to dispose of the appeals, withinthree months from the date of receipt of this order, without beinginfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Nocosts.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in theseCivil Revision Petitions, shall stand dismissed.

Date:31.12.2014mrb

__________________________

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR