THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28395 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, in an appeal filed under Section 24 of the A.P. Telangana Area (Inams Abolition) Act, 1955. The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent did not assign any reasons for condonation of the enormous delay of 13 years and on facts also, he mixed up those in two similar cases. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Respondents 2 to 5 filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act assailing the Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) issued in favour of the petitioners on 22.05.1985. The delay in presenting the appeal was condoned through an order, dated 03.04.1999. The petitioners filed W.P.No.13162 of 1999 against the same. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, particularly on the question of condonation of delay. After such remand, the 1st respondent not only condoned the delay, but also had allowed the appeal. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the facts in relation to the ORCs issued in favour of the petitioners with reference to a different piece of land were mixed up. In fact, an identical order passed on 22.11.2008 was the subject matter of W.P.No.1740 of 2009. This Court allowed the writ petition on 04.02.2009 and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. Apart from the fact that the present impugned order suffers from the same infirmity, an additional factor is that no reasons worth their name were, mentioned for condonatin of delay of 13 years. The 1st respondent is under obligation to satisfy himself about such a delay. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, including the one on the question of condonation of delay. It is made clear that the 1st respondent shall mention clear reasons for condonation of such delay. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 13.03.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28395 of 2008 Date: 13.03.2009 JSU