THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25406 of 1997 Dated:26.08.2009 Between: T.Yadagiri Swamy alias T.Yadagiri Rao, And another. …Petitioners and The Collector, Hyderabad District, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25406 of 1997 ORDER: The two petitioners are sons of one Rangaswami. They are aggrieved by a notice issued by the first respondent requiring them to be present in the Collector’s Office on 19.09.1997 in connection with the enquiry into the petition submitted by the third respondent herein, namely, Hindu Graveyard Development Committee. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 12.09.1997. The petitioners have filed a lengthy affidavit running into twelve pages tracing the history of various disputes with regard to the land comprised in survey Nos.285 and 286 (old survey Nos.177 and 178) corresponding to T.S.No.3, Block A, Ward No.21 of Guddimalkapur Village. It is not necessary to go into the details. Suffice to mention that on an application made by the petitioners, they were granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Inams Abolition Act, for brevity). ORC was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide orders No.B/7252/80, dated 16.02.1982, to an extent of Acs.3.36 guntas out of total extent of Acs.7.31 guntas in survey Nos.285 and 286. They were also granted ORC in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in the same survey numbers. The third respondent submitted a petition on 06.09.1997 alleging that an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas in both the survey numbers is Hindu graveyard, and therefore, ORC issued to the petitioners is illegal. In connection therewith, the first respondent so as to conduct enquiry issued notices posting the enquiry on 19.09.1997. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent stating that the land admeasuring Acs.4.04 guntas in survey No.285 and Acs.3.22 in survey No.286 known as Tirupalli Devalayam, Mafi Inam, situated at Guddimalkapur Village is inam of Rangaswamy Temple as per town survey register. The Temple is an enjoyer and an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas is shown as graveyard. Nonetheless, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued ORC on 16.02.1982 without verifying the town survey records published in Gazette No.60, dated 25.09.1976. After obtaining the ORC, petitioners are trying to change the nature of the land by raising constructions, when Mandal Revenue Officer stopped the construction. A report was submitted to the Collector and he issued orders staying the operation of ORC duly issuing notice to the petitioners to appear in the enquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that ORC was granted validly to the petitioners, that they also filed declaration before the Special Officer under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, that the title of the petitioners was upheld by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, in L.G.C.Nos.141 and 142 of 1995, and that after lapse of twenty one years from the date of issue of ORC, the Collector would not have entertained the application made by the third respondent to reopen the ORC granted to them. He also submits that after long lapse of twenty one years, the Collector cannot entertain the appellate powers suo moto under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act. These contentions are refuted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the District Collector or Joint Collector ordinarily cannot exercise appellate powers after long lapse of time cannot be accepted without any reservations. It is no doubt true that Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act prescribes thirty days time for filing appeal. But, the provision confers power on the appellate authority to entertain appeal which is filed even after thirty days if a sufficient cause is shown. In this case, ORC was granted to the petitioners in February 1982, and first respondent issued a notice on 12.09.1997 after lapse of fifteen years. In the meanwhile, LGC was decided in the petitioners’ favour. Ordinarily, after long lapse of such time, when the rights are seemingly crystallized, the appellate power could not be exercised. But, in this case, the allegation is made that out of total extent of Acs.7.31 guntas in survey Nos.285 and 286 (T.S.No.3) an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas is a graveyard and remaining land belongs to the Temple. There cannot be any dispute that under proviso to Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, where the imams are held by the charitable institutions or wakfs, no person shall be entitled to be registered as occupant and even if ORC is issued, it shall be deemed always to have been null and void. Therefore, on this ground the Collector can conduct enquiry. If the land is registered or shown in the records as belonging to the Temple, issue of ORC is certainly statutory fraud. When fraud is committed while obtaining ORC, the question of limitation does not arise. This Court, however, hastens to add that these are the matters to be gone into. The Collector or Joint Collector is bound to enquire into the matter in great detail after taking into consideration the order passed by the Special Court in LGC Nos.141 and 142 of 1995 and also the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, bearing Rc.No.E/1007/83, dated 08.08.1983, wherein it was mentioned that the land does not belong to the Temple. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Ragho Singh v Mohan Singh[1] in support of contention of his plea of limitation. As the matter is being remanded to the Collector, liberty is given to the petitioners to place the same before the Collector. In the result, for the above reasons, this Writ Petition is misconceived. While ordering status quo as on today, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to appear before the District Collector on 08.09.2009 with a copy of this order. As and when the petitioners appear, it shall be open to the Collector to fix the date for enquiry, and conduct enquiry taking into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders and communicate to the petitioners in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2009 vs [1] (2001) 9 SCC 717