THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10448 of 2010 April 30, 2010 Between: M.Anjaiah, S/o.Beeraiah And others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10448 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners allege that they have been in possession of land admeasuring Acs.2.05 guntas in survey No.5 situated at Marpallyguda, H/o.Edulabad Village of Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. Respondents 3 to 8 approached second respondent – Inams Tribunal; for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC). By order dated 31.3.2006, Inams Tribunal passed a reasoned order conferring ORC on respondents 3 to 8 for various extents of lands in survey Nos.5, 11, 22, 35, 39, 45, 46, 47, 749, 750, 751 and 936 holding that they are legal heirs of original inamdar, Syed Ahmed Yousufuddin. Petitioners herein, who allegedly were claimants before original authority, preferred appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act). By impugned order dated 09.9.2008, first respondent rejected the appeal. The appeal order is impeached in the writ petition. The counsel for petitioners submits that his clients have explained the reasons for delay and laches and, therefore, even though writ petition is filed after 19 months, the same does not prejudice the rights of contesting respondents. The submission cannot be accepted. Third petitioner who filed affidavit in support of writ petition alleged that their counsel who appeared before Inams Tribunal did not bring to their notice about order passed by the Inams Tribunal, that he had not keeping good health and became seriously ill in 2009 and, therefore, delay occurred. Both the allegations remain unsubstantiated and are not proved. Therefore, the casual allegations in paragraph 9 of affidavit cannot be given any credence. It is nextly submitted that in the Pahanis for the year 1972-1973 to 1978, it is mentioned that, “Kurmavallu” are in possession of the property, that petitioners are Kurmavallu and, therefore, legal heirs of original Inamdar ought not to have been issued pattas. The other submission also misconceived. A perusal of the order of original authority as well as appellate authority would show that Syed Ahmed Yousufuddin, predecessor of contesting respondents, was Inamdar owning an extent of Acs.70.39 in various survey numbers referred to hereinabove. Some third parties filed a claim before the Inams Tribunal. In File No.E/94/75, the Inams Tribunal granted ORC. It was challenged by the respondents before District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in appeal No.B3/9298/80. By the order dated 27.4.1984, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. After remand, the matter was taken in File No.J/318/2001 and after conducting enquiry afresh, by order dated 31.3.2006, Inams Tribunal granted ORC in favaur of legal heirs of original inamdar, against which the appeal was filed. Before the appellate authority, it was contended that petitioners were not parties before the Inams Tribunal and that names of appellants or their predecessors in the earlier proceedings do not tally with the names of the parties. Further a perusal of the order of original authority would show that the legal heirs of inamdar relinquished their right in respect of land in survey No.5 in favour of 21 persons – presumably Kurmavallu; but the same is not the case of appellants who are not parties before Inams Tribunal. Therefore the submission of counsel for petitioners that Kurmavallu referred to in the Pahanis do not certainly include petitioners and that Kurmavallu who are already found to be in possession by reason of admission made by legal heirs of inamdar, who are already issued ORC. The other questions raised by petitioners are questions of fact and they cannot be gone into in writ petition. The petitioners utterly failed to plead or prove grave error apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 30, 2010. YS