MIR ALAMDAR ALI Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR-I, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has declined to condone the huge delay in filing the appeals against the orders granting Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in favour of the private respondents in these writ petitions.

(2.) The Revenue Divisional Officer (East Division), Ranga Reddy District, has granted ORCs in favour of the private respondents on different dates between the years 1978 and 1993. The father of the petitioner, who claimed to be the owner of the lands in question, has contested the applications filed by the private respondents or their predecessors in title before the Revenue Divisional Officer in the proceedings initiated for grant of ORCs. However, he has allowed the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer to attain finality. The petitioner has woken up in the year 2013 and filed W.P.No.22035 of 2013 questioning the ORCs granted in favour of the private respondents. This Court, not being convinced with the conduct of the petitioner in approaching the Court many years after issue of ORCs, was not to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to his client to avail any other remedy available in law. Accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.07.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the purported appeals under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') questioning the grant of ORCs in favour of the private respondents. In these appeals, the petitioner has also filed separate applications for condonation of enormous delays. However, the appeals were dismissed by respondent No.1, by common order dated 02.09.2013, which is questioned in these writ petitions.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri Vijay B.Paropkari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has not issued any notice and given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.