MADIGA YADAIAH Vs. CH. NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/9/2017 passed in Case No.F1/2314/16 by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at ORR Keesara confirming the order dtd. 18/12/2014 passed in Case No.L/3101/2004 by the Inam Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella (for short 'Tribunal'). The petitioner No.1 herein is the appellant before the Joint Collector.

(2.) The facts of the case are that according to the revenue records, specifically the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the land bearing Sy.No.979 to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, situated at Kukatpally Village and Mandal is an Inam land. Petitioner No.1 claims that Sri Madiga Bhoomaiah was the Inamdar and possessor of the said land, and after his death, as his successor, petitioner No.1 was in possession of the land. However, some unknown persons have entered the land, claiming ownership, obtained Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) for Sy.No.979. The petitioner No.1 disputes this, pointing out discrepancies in the revenue records. The revenue records for the year 1995-96 shows the names of Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, Chinna Narsimulu and Pentaiah in col.13 as occupants. As per the pahani for the year 2002-03 the names of Chinna Narsimulu, Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, Boddu Pentaiah and A.Dharma Rao are recorded and occupants in col.13 as is mentioned in Sy.No.978. In subsequent pahanies the names of Chinna Narsimulu and others are recorded in pursuance of the MRO order dtd. 17/3/2004 in File No.B/14021/2004. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the order from the Revenue Divisional Officer on 30/4/2016, and filed an appeal in a timely manner. When the petitioner requested copies of pahanies from 1955 onwards, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) issued a Memo stating that records from 1955 to 1995 were damaged in a fire accident. It is further alleged that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not verify the Khasra Pahani, despite its availability, and instead relied on manipulated pahanies for the year 1995-96, 2002-03 to grant ORC to respondents 1 to 5, that no notice was served before passing the impugned order and that the respondents were never in possession of the land.

(3.) The respondent No.6 therein filed counter stating that the petitioner is neither a legal representative of the Inamdar nor connected to his family. Instead, the petitioner No.1 has manipulated his name and father's name to suit his case, contrary to records. According to the death certificate filed by the petitioner No.1, his name is shown as Kommu Yadaiah S/o.Bhoomaiah, with no mention of "Madiga" before their names. It is further stated that other individuals, namely Chinna Narsimha, Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, and Chinna Narasimha, cultivated lands in Sy.Nos.978 and 979 of Kukatpally Village and obtained Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) as family members of the Inamdars. The petitioner No.1 has not provided any documents showing cultivation of land, which has remained uncultivated and non-agricultural for several years. The respondent No.6 claims that the petitioner's General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder is behind the case, aiming to extract money through litigation threats. Given the petitioner No.1 lack of connection to the Inamdar's family and failed to question issuance of ORC and the appeal appears to be based on false allegations, filed 11 years after the issuance of ORCs, and is thus barred by limitation. The respondent No.6 relied on the judgments in Mir Alamdar Ali V Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District and Others,2014 (1) ALD 177. Gali Suvarna and others V Vadla Raghunandan and others,2011 (4) ALD 763. and Barla Prabhakar Reddy V Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and others,(2009) 2 ALD 681. emphasizing that huge and inordinate delay in condoning applications shouldn't be entertained.