AGEER DASARATHAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR MAHABUBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the sons of Ageer Sri Ramulu and they along with their brothers are entitled to the property owned by their father late Sri Ramulu. However, on an application given by Ageer Srinivasulu one of the brothers of the petitioners, the second respondent i. e Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar without causing any detailed enquiry issued Occupancy Right Certificate in Form ii of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 (for short 'the act' ). Questioning the issuance of the said Occupancy Right Certificate, petitioners preferred an appeal before the first respondent-Joint Collector, mahabubnagar and in the said process as there was a delay they also filed an application. However, the first respondent rejected the said appeal. Hence this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE brief facts are that Ageer Sri Ramulu is having five sons and during his lifetime he owned lands admeasuring Ac. 9. 00 and Ac. 2. 35 in Sy. Nos. 440 and 442 respectively in Bhurgula village. Claiming that there was an earlier partition between the brothers, Ageer Srinivasulu who is arrayed as fourth respondent filed an application before the second respondent, claiming that he alone is entitled for issuance of the Occupancy Right Certificate in the light of his possession as on the crucial date i. e. 01. 11. 1973. Along with the said application he also gave a sworn statement stating that he alone is entitled to the said certificate and that his brothers i. e. the petitioners or anybody do not have any legal right whatsoever. Upon the filing of the said application, the second respondent sent notices to the petitioners through the Mandal Revenue officer of Farooqnagar, but as the petitioners are not residing in the village, it was published by way of tom tom and thereafter holding an enquiry, the second respondent having been satisfied that the fourth respondent i. e. Srinivasulu is entitled for issuance of the Occupancy Right Certificate issued the same in his favour. As the petitioners are not residing at Bhurgula village they are not aware of all these facts and subsequently having come to know about all these proceedings after about 10 years, they approached the first respondent who is the appellate authority and filed an appeal under section 24 of the said Act. But as the said appeal has to be filed within a period of 90 days and as it was filed after lapse of 10 years, the petitioners also filed a petition to condone the said delay and the first respondent by his order dated 21. 08. 2008 refused to condone the said delay as it is abnormal and no specific reasons for the said delay are assigned. As stated supra, the same is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.