WP/27262/2005 of B. Narasimha Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector, R.R.District, on 23 December 2005

:O R D E R:

The petitioner impugnes the proceedings dated 30-07-2005 of the 1[st] respondentwhereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of theAndhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’)was dismissed as barred by limitation, admittedly for the reason that the petitionerherein challenged the Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ‘the ORC’) issued infavour of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein in the year 1976.

It is the case of the petitioner that the land ad-measuring Acs. 12-18 Gts., in surveyNo.328 and land in survey No.327 ad-measuring Acs. 19-13 Gts., is inam land ofone Mohd. Ali. The petitioner and one Balram Kistaiah were allegedly cultivating theland under an agreement of sale and the petitioner was in possession of theproperty on the date of coming into force of the Act. Be that as it is, the petitionerapproached the Revenue Divisional Officer for getting a patta transferred in hisname. Such application was filed in November, 2004. When he was advised toobtain the ORC from the Inams Tribunal-cum-the Revenue Divisional Officer (2[nd]respondent), on inquiries made, he came to know that the ORC was already issuedin favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 by the 2[nd] respondent in the year 1976. Hethereafter filed appeal, which was rejected by the 1[st] respondent due to enormousdelay of about thirty (30) years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that as per the provisions ofthe Act, the person in possession and cultivating the land and as on the date ofcoming into force of the Act, is alone entitled for the ORC, that respondent Nos. 3 to8 played fraud and obtained the ORC from the 2[nd] respondent without even makingthe petitioner as a party respondent to the proceedings before the 2[nd] respondent.He contends that in view of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation starts running from the date of the petitioner discovering fraud committed by therespondent Nos. 3 to 8. That the petitioner came to know about the ORC obtained bythe contesting respondents in the year November, 2004 and, therefore, the appealpreferred by him is within time. Secondly, he would urge that under Section 24 of the Act, discretion is given to the 1[st] respondent to entertain appeals against the ORC, ifthere is a valid cause and the 2[nd] respondent dismissed the appeal without givingany reasons. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P.CHENGALVA RAYU NAIDU v. JAGANNATH and A. BALAIAH & OTHERS v.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD DISTRICT AND OTHERS insupport of his contention.

Opposing the writ petition, at the stage of admission, learned AssistantGovernment Pleader vehemently states that the petitioner has not given any details nor produced any evidence to show his possession and that the 1[st] respondent isjustified in rejecting the appeal, which is filed after a period of about thirty (30) years.

The appeal was presented by the petitioner, admittedly, in 2005 after he wasinformed by the Revenue authorities about the grant of the ORC in favour of therespondent Nos. 3 to 8. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed

Conclusion

by the 1[st] respondent refusing to entertain the appeal under Section 24 of the Act.Be it noted, Section 24 of the Act enables a person aggrieved by a decision of theCollector under Section 10 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority(the Joint Collector) within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of decision orsuch further time as the prescribed authority may, for sufficient cause, allow. Thiscourt in A. Balaiah & Others v. The District Collector, Hyderabad & others (1)supra, interpreted this provision and held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963has no application, as Section 24 of the Act itself is given power to the authority toentertain the appeal. If a party approaches the Joint Collector with enormous delay,such person has to prove, by cogent evidence, the reasons for filing appeal withsuch delay and the reasons why he could not file an appeal within thirty (30) daysfrom the date of decision of the Inams Tribunal. In this case, the petitioner states thathe is an ill-literate and not conversant with the complicated legal procedure and hewas totally involved in the agricultural operations and, therefore, he was not awareof the ORC nor could he file appeal within time. This contention is devoid of anymerit.

Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 obtained the ORC from the 2[nd] respondentpresumably after convincing the Inams Tribunal that they are cultivating the land andare in possession of the land. It is unimaginable that respondent Nos. 3 to 8 keptquite after obtaining the ORC and continued the petitioner to cultivate the lands.Secondly, the petitioner has not placed any material before this court or before the1[st] respondent to show that for the last thirty (30) years, he is continuing theagricultural operations in the subject land. Further, as per Rule 5 of the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’), aperson, who claims the ORC, is required to file an application before the InamsTriobunal in Form No.I. The petitioner did not file any application immediately after coming into force of the Act and, therefore, it is deemed that he waived his rights forthe ORC.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not disclose any reasons, cannot be accepted. The 1[st] respondent dismissedthe appeal in accordance with Section 24 of the Act holding that the petitioner filedappeal against the ORC issued in 1976 and the same is barred by limitation. Thepetitioner did not place any material to show that he has produced sufficient materialseeking condonation of such delay. A perusal of the memorandum of grounds filedbefore the 1[st] respondent, annexed to the writ petition, would show that thepetitioner did not plead anything in his favour for condonation of delay.

The writ petition, with the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

___________

V.V.S. RAO, J

23-12-2005

pvks/*