IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 224 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/12/2008 in WP NO : 11794 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Chiluguri Kondaiah S/o. Narsimha R/o. H.No.10-115, Marripalligudem Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Chiluguri Sathyanarayana S/o. Narsimha R/o. H.No.10-115, Marripalligudem Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Mekala Ilaiah S/o. Jangaiah R/o. H.No.9-161, Marripalligudem Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Bharla Mallaiah S/o. Jangaiah R/o. H.No.9-112, Marripalligudem Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Kamma Yadi Reddy S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, Lakdikapool. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East Division. 3 Syed Ahmed Saifuddin S/o. Late S.A. Yousufuddin, R/o.3-4-55/D/66/1, Indira Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. 4 Kannaganti Narsimha R/o.3-4-102/D, Laxminagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. 5 Narne Ashok Kumar S/o. N.C. Naidu R/o. Plot No.5, Mithika Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 6 S. Purnachandra Rao S/o. Late S. Venkateshwarlu R/o.H.No.10-5-15/B-3, 3rd Floor, Flegance Apartments, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 7 Edide Sathish S/o. E. Nageswara Rao R/o.C-26/BN, Road No.8, Film Nagar, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad. 8 B. Dharma Teja S/o. B. Dhananjaya Rao R/o. 402, Padma Sai Towers, Motinagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.MALAHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 224 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 11.12.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.11794 of 2008. The appellants herein filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the orders in case No.F1/69/1999 dated 21.2.2000 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the orders in proceedings No.I/3053/89, dated 7.5.2000 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, on the ground that they are legal heirs of G. Narsimha, Jangaiah and Ramaiah and their predecessors were allegedly granted occupancy rights certificate under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 24 of the Act and during pendency of the said appeal, the predecessors of the petitioners and the third respondent filed a joint memo of compromise, according to which, it was agreed that the 3rd respondent would be handed over possession of land admeasuring Ac.13.12 guntas in Sy.No.13 situated at Marripalliguda, and Yadi Reddy, Jangaiah and two others would continue to hold the land in Sy.No.58 admeasuring Acs.3.24 guntas, and on that, the Joint Collector, disposed of the appeal on 21.2.2000 directing the second respondent to give effect to the joint memo and issue revised ORC and pursuant to the said order dated 21.2.2000, by proceedings dated 7.5.2000, the 2nd respondent ordered ORC to third respondent for Ac.13.12 guntas in Sy.No.13 and separate ORC to K. Yadaiah, M. Jangaiah, B. Jangaiah, B. Veeraiah, B. Narsimha and G. Narsimha for Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.58 situated at Marripalliguda. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the above writ petition after a period of 8 years stating that due to ignorance, they could not approach this Court at the earliest point of time. The learned single Judge having observed that if the High Court is approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with inordinate delay of eight years, there should be proper explanation for such delay and the explanation offered by the writ petitioners that due to ignorance, they were not able to detect the fraud played by the contesting respondents, cannot be accepted, and that the revised ORCs have been annexed to the writ petitions and when they were aware that the revised ORCs were issued in May, 2000 only in respect of the part of the land, nothing prevented them to approach the Court and that except making a wild allegation that fraud is played, no effort is made to demonstrate the same and that insofar as the number of ORC issued initially to the predecessors’ of the petitioners and number of the proceedings impugned before the Joint Collector being different, is concerned, the ORC issued under Section 8 of the Act should not be confused with the proceedings which precedes issue of ORC and it is quite possible that when there are rival claimants, RDO acting as Inams Tribunal issues notice, takes evidence and passes a reasonable order with a different file and after passing such order only ORC is issued and number appearing on ORC cannot be treated as a file number itself and therefore, fraud and misrepresentation cannot be readily inferred, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the above writ petition was filed after a lapse of 8 years. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that some of the appellants and the predecessors of some of the appellants are parties to the proceedings dated 7.5.2000, which were issued basing on the joint memo filed by the parties, and that the revised ORCs were issued in their favour. Having knowledge as to the issuance of the revised ORCs in respect of the part of the land in question, the plea of ignorance taken by the appellants for not approaching the Court at the earliest point of time, is not sustainable, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we feel that the explanation offered by the appellants for such inordinate delay is not convincing and satisfactory and hence, the order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference. It is also case of the appellants that their predecessors were granted ORC in file No.H/583/1986, dated 14.3.1986 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.13.12 guntas in Sy.No.13 and Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.58 and no appeal has been filed by the 3rd respondent at all against the same, and the 3rd respondent filed the appeal against the order dated 27.11.1998 passed in file No.J/3053/1989 in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.13.12 guntas and 3.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.13 and 58 and therefore, the orders dated 14.3.1986 became final and the subsequent orders were obtained by playing fraud. Basing on the variation in numbers appeared on the file and ORCs, the writ petitioners are contending that no appeal is filed in respect of the lands in question and therefore, the orders dated 14.3.1986 became final. There is every possibility of variation in numbers while conducting proceedings of this nature, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. On mere technicalities, it cannot be said that fraud is played. Apart from that, except making a bald allegation that the subsequent orders were obtained by playing fraud, nothing was placed before the learned single Judge in support of the said allegation, and no such ground is raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any material on record as to the fraud alleged to have been played and in view of the fact that the survey number and the extents of the lands are tallying and that the material on record makes it clear that the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed basing on the joint memo filed by the parties, no adverse inference can be drawn against the orders impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 22nd April, 2009 Note: Issue CC in one week (BO) Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :224 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 22nd April, 2009