BARLA PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in Sy. No. 143 of doolapally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, ranga Reddy District was held as inam by one, Sri B. Ranga Reddy. It was in the enjoyment of one Mr. Gyara Venkaiah. It is stated that in the family partition it was allotted to Gyara Laxmaiah, the son of venkaiah. Laxmaiah, in turn, sold two acres of land in favour of Sri Poshetty gandaiah, and the petitioner purchased two acres from Gandaiah in the year 1985. On an application made by the petitioner, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue divisional Officer, East Division, the 2nd respondent, issued Occupancy Right certificate (for short the 'orc') in favour of the petitioner, through order dated 7. 5. 1997.

(2.) THE wife of late Gyara Laxmaiah, the 4th respondent, and their daughters, respondents 5 to 8 and two brothers of gyara Laxmaiah, respondents 9 and 10, filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, the 1st respondent, against the order dated 7. 5. 1997 passed by the 2nd respondent. Since the appeal was presented after expiry of more than a decade, they filed a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay. On receiving the notices in the appeal, the petitioner raised several objections. Through order dated 20. 12. 2008, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) SRI S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation act do not apply to the proceedings before the 1st respondent, and still an appeal preferred after 11 years was entertained. He contends that even assuming that the 1st respondent is conferred with the power to condone the delay, he did not pass any order to the effect that the delay is condoned, much less any reasons were assigned. Learned Counsel further contends that through a catena of decisions, this court held that the transferee from a person holding an inam land, is entitled to apply for orc, and the view taken by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal is erroneous.