THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23280 of 2008 O r d e r: One late Sri. Erpula Pochaiah, was the Inamdar of land in an extent of Acs. 1.25 guntas in Sy. No. 184 of Nagaram village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners claim that they are his legal heirs and that they having succeeded to the above said property after his death, are in possession and enjoyment thereof. They state that the name of late Sri. Erpula Pochaiah, ﬁnds place in the revenue records right from the years 1959-60 to 1998- 99. While so, the petitioners state that respondent No.3, on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale deed, as if some of the petitioners have sold the land in question to him, obtained Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate dated 30.10.1993 in File No. J/6003/93, from respondent No.1, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, with a view to grab the property in question, filed a suit in O.S. No. 198/2000 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against petitioner Nos. 2, 5 and 8, for injunction. While the matters stand thus, the petitioners ﬁled appeal under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1995, along with condone delay petition, before respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, questioning the orders dated 30.10.1993, passed by respondent No.2, granting Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 contested the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.1, having considered the rival contentions, vide orders dated 13.09.2008, impugned in the writ petition, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have never sold the property in question to anybody, much less to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed, applied for Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate, but respondent No.2, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, granted Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate to respondent No.3 on 30.10.1993. He submitted that even though respondent No.3 ﬁled suit in O.S. No. 198 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against petitioner Nos. 2, 5 and 8, the fact remains, he has not disclosed about the obtaining of the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate. The petitioners on coming to know that respondent No.3 obtained Occupancy Rights, immediately ﬁled appeal before respondent No.1 along with condone delay petition, but respondent No.1 without properly considering the reason for delay, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that is barred by limitation. The said order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary, and prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and perused the impugned order. A reading of the impugned order, passed by respondent No.1, which recorded the stand taken by respondent No.3, would disclose that the petitioners were served with the notices before respondent No.2 granted Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate, and in fact, they are even said to have attested on the said notices. The factum of respondent No.3 ﬁling the suit without disclosing the obtaining Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate dated 30.10.1993, is denied by respondent No.3, and in fact, it is speciﬁcally stated by respondent No.3 in the counter ﬁled by him in the appeal that he ﬁled certiﬁed copy of the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate and that petitioner Nos. 2, 5 and 8, appeared through counsel and contested the suit. From this stand taken by respondent No.3, which in fact, is recorded by respondent No.1, in the impugned order, would make it clear that the petitioners are aware of the obtaining of Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate by respondent No.3 in the year 1993 years, if not, at least from the year 2000, when respondent No.3 ﬁled the suit for injunction. However, the petitioners, in spite of being aware of the fact that respondent No.3, had obtained the Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate, yet failed to question the same immediately, and ﬁled the appeal questioning the said order, after lapse of nearly 15 years, and no convincing and plausible reason having been given by the petitioners for not ﬁling the appeal, questioning the order of respondent No.2, granting Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate, respondent No.1 refused to entertain the appeal ﬁled by the petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Even in the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have not stated as to why they have not take appropriate steps to ﬁle appeal at an earlier point of time. In that view of the matter, I ﬁnd no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1, refusing to entertain the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by limitation. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th November, 2008. KSR