THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12071 of 2010 June 01, 2010 Between: Yerpula @ Aerupula Yadaiah, S/o.late Yerupula Narasimha And others … Petitioner And The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12071 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, nine (9) in number, filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the first respondent in exercise of appellate powers under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act). By the said order, first respondent dismissed the appeal filed against the order of second respondent dated 30.10.1993 whereby and whereunder Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was granted to fourth respondent in respect of land admeasuring Acs.1.08 guntas in survey No.69/2 situated at Chengicherla Village of Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. There is no dispute that second respondent issued ORC in favour of fourth respondent in respect of subject land on 30.10.1993. There is also no dispute that the petitioners herein, who claim to be the legal heirs of original inamdars, filed appeal before the first respondent, after lapse of 15 years. There is also no dispute that they did not file any application to condone the delay of the appeal. In this background, first respondent came to the conclusion that the appeal filed by them is barred by limitation. The counsel for petitioners however contends that first respondent has got power under Section 24 of the Act to entertain the appeal even if it is filed after expiry of 30 days. A perusal of Section 24 of the Act would show that appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of decision of the Inams Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer) or such further as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow. It is for the petitioners to plead and prove such sufficient cause but a perusal of the appeal grounds filed before the first respondent would disclose that no such attempt was made to justify the delay of a decade and a half. Therefore, in this writ petition for judicial review, the scope to interfere is very limited. This Court does not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the first respondent. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is therefore dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 01, 2010 YS