IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4302 of 2008 Between: Chakali Sayanna S/o Chakali Pentaiah R/o Khanapoor Mandal, marpelly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretarit, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Chakali Narayana S/o Chakali Sangaiah R/o Ghanapoor Village, Marepelly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the connected records including the impugned proceedings in Case NO. F1/1520/2007 dated 31-10-2007 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to grant ORC in respect of Ac. 1-30 guntas in Sy.No. 120 of Ghanapoor Village, marpelly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his grand father was cultivating the land in Sy.No.120 admeasuring Ac.5.20 guntas and the father of the 4th respondent was cultivating an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in the same survey number, but the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad granted Occupancy Right Certificate for an extent of Ac.3.30 guntas instead of Ac.5.20 guntas. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to Ac.1.30 guntas which is said to have been in his possession out of the total extent of Ac.5.20 guntas towards his share but the 4th respondent obtained Occupancy Right Certificate for an extent of Ac.3.30 guntas instead of Ac.2.00. Against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Case No.D/3724/1989, dated 09-02-1990, granting Occupancy Right Certificate relating to the land in Sy.No.120 admeasuring Ac.5.20 guntas petitioner filed an appeal on 23-01-2007 before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector-II, Rangareddy District under Section 24 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not aware of the issuance of the Occupancy Right Certificate by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings, dated 09-02-1990, but he came to know only when a memo, dated 28-12-2006, was issued stating that the Occupancy Right Certificate was already issued by the aforesaid proceedings and there is no land available for issuance of Occupancy Right Certificate. 4. Petitioner has not questioned the said memo, but he has questioned the impugned order, dated 09-02-1990, in granting Occupancy Right Certificate. Admittedly, petitioner has not filed the copy of the said order either before the appellate authority or before this Court. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed in 2007 i.e., after a lapse of sixteen years, is not maintainable. 5. Under Section 24 of the Act, appeal lies to the appellate authority within thirty days from the date of decision but there is a power to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. It is stated that the petitioner has not filed any application to condone the delay and therefore, the said appeal has been dismissed. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the order impugned. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 29th February, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}