IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21556 of 2007 Between: Syed Chote Bee, W/o. Syed Bade Khaja, R/o. Masaniguda Village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, at Attapur, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Shankarpalli Mandal, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Beejan Bee, W/o. Mahaboob Sab, R/o. H.No. 12-9-922/4/A/1, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. 5 Syed Babu Jani @ Jafar, S/o. Mahaboob Sab, R/o. H.No. 12-9-922/4/A/1, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. 6 Syed Akthar, S/o. Mahaboob Sab, R/o. H.No. 12-9-922/4/A/1, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. 7 Syed Iqbal, S/o. Mahaboob Sab, R/o. H.No. 12-9-922/4/A/1, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. 8 Syed Afsar, S/o. Mahaboob Sab, R/o. H.No. 12-9-922/4/A/1, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of Syed Mahaboob Ali for the lands measuring Ac.10.00 in Sy.No. 217 of Masaniguda Village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings No. A1/2237/75 dated 1-5-1979 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice, apart from contrary to the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition on Inams Act, 1954, consequently direct the second respondent to issue Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the petitioner for the lands admeasuring Ac. 4.25 acres in Sy.No. 217 of Masaniguda Village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District case and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21556 of 2007 ORDER: The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) granted to one Syed Mahaboob Sab, husband of the fourth respondent; on 01.05.1979. This order is challenged as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity), and also on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The case of the petitioner, wife of Syed Bade Khaja, is as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.10.00 in survey No.217 of Masaniguda Village apart from other lands was originally owned by Syed Buran Sab of Masaniguda Village of Shankarpalli Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He had three sons, Syed Mahaboob Sab, Syed Bade Khaja and Syed Chote Khaja. It is alleged that forty years prior to filing of writ petition, there was a partition among three sons and land in survey No.217 admeasuring Acs.10.00 fell to the share of Syed Bade Khaja and Syed Chote Khaja, each getting Acs.5.00. Petitioner alleges that after such partition, necessary entries were made in the revenue records and sons of Syed Buran Sab were in respective possession. After death of her husband, petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Shankarpalli Mandal, for mutation. At that time, they came to know that ORC was given to Syed Mahaboob Sab. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. There cannot be any doubt that the challenge of an order/ORC passed on 01.05.1979 after long lapse of about thirty years is certainly belated. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a fraud played on the Inams Tribunal by one of the brothers, ORC is vitiated and it is null. It is no doubt true that when fraud is played on public authorities, the decision cannot be allowed to stand. Any decision vitiated by fraud is null. But, fraud and misrepresentation require proof based on cogent and convincing evidence. Except an allegation made across the bar and further submitting that due to partition, property in survey No.217 fell to the share of other two brothers, much effort has not been made. In any view of the matter, it is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into. Furthermore, Section 24 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Joint Collector. In appropriate cases, Joint Collector can even condone the delay. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Joint Collector within a period of ten days from today. As and when such appeal is filed, Joint Collector may consider petitioner’s case and her case for condonation of delay and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to respondent Nos.4 to 8. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.12.2008 Note: Issue C.C by 17.12.2008. B/o. vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}