THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1294 of 2009 ORDER: One Mr.G. Buchaiah, held an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas of land in Sy.No.59 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He had two sons, by name, Srihari and Sadanandam. The land was covered by the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). On an application filed by Srihari, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, the 2nd respondent herein, granted Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) through proceedings dated 07-10-1976. The 3rd respondent, who is the son of Sadanandam, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, the 1st respondent herein, under Section 24 of the Act, against the ORC granted on 07-10-1976. Through order dated 27-12- 2008, the 1st respondent had allowed the appeal, set aside the ORC, and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioners claim to be the purchasers from Srihari, the person in whose favour the ORC was granted. They feel aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 27-12-2008. It is stated that hardly any discussion was undertaken, be it, in the matter of condonation of delay of more than 30 years, or on merits. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The ORC was granted in favour of Srihari, the vendor of the petitioners, way back in the year 1976. The 3rd respondent preferred the appeal 37 years thereafter. Very strong case was required to be made out for condonation of such delay. Further, before an ORC is set aside, the Appellate Authority is under obligation to state the reasons, as to how it suffers from factual or legal defects. That being the requirement under law, the 1st respondent hardly discussed the matter, whether for condonation of such enormous delay, or for setting aside the ORC. The entire justification is provided for, in two paragraphs, viz., “The appellant is taking the claim on the ground that himself and respondents 1 and 2 are the successors and share holders over the property of late Buchaiah. But the father of the Respondents 1 and 2 has obtained the Occupancy Right Certificate behind his back. Sale of the land under the present and not choosing to defend their case, proves that fraud is played by the father of the respondents 1 and 2 in getting the Occupancy Right Certificate. Thus the delay condone petition is allowed. The impleading petition is also allowed and the petitioner is recorded as respondent No.9 to safeguard his interest. To meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper to set aside the Occupancy Right Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division, vide No.A1/63/1975, dated 07-10-1976.” The contents of the paragraphs extracted above are bit incoherent and no reason, worth its name, for condonation of delay is mentioned. Further, the only basis to set aside the ORC indicated by the 1st respondent is, that such a course would meet the ends of justice. Here again, the order is laconic and bereft of any reasons. Valuable rights that accrued to the parties over decades cannot be wiped away in such a manner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders independently, discussing the grounds pleaded for condonation of delay, and the conclusions about the legality or otherwise of the ORC granted in favour of Srihari. The petitioners shall not alienate the land, or otherwise alter its nature, till the 1st respondent passes orders on remand. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-04-2009. KO