THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19595 of 2008 ORDER: Respondents 1 and 2 filed an application, in the year 1995, for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of Acs.2.07 guntas of land in survey No.1954 of Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Five persons, by name, Shyamala, Laxmamma, Sharada, Regonda Bheem Reddy and Chennagalla Narsimlu were impleaded as respondents. After conducting enquiry into the matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, the 6th respondent herein, passed an order, dated 20.06.1998, granting ORC to respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner states that he purchased that very land from the father of respondents 1 and 2 under an unregistered sale deed in the year 1980. It is also stated that he is in enjoyment of land, ever since the date of purchase. The petitioner also avers that some third parties filed O.S.No.75 of 1997 against him and that it was dismissed, upholding his claim. On coming to know that respondents 1 and 2 were issued ORC, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act, before the Joint Collector, the 5th respondent herein. The appeal was dismissed, as time barred through order, dated 28.07.2008. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri K.Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner intendeds to challenge the ORC issued to respondents 1 and 2, way back in the year 1998. There was delay of about 9 years. The appeal under Section 24 of the Act has to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation. The 5th respondent was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner for delay. The petitioner does not dispute that the land in question was part of an Inam. On his own accord, the petitioner did not approach the 5th respondent for grant of ORC. The facts obtaining as on the notified date, which is in the year 1973, have to be taken into account, for determination of the claims for ORC. Admittedly, the petitioner came into picture only in the year 1980, that too, on the strength of an unregistered sale deed. Unless and until the petitioner seeks the remedy of validation of the unregistered transaction, or file a suit for specific performance, he cannot validly agitate his rights, even if the delay is to be condoned. Further, in case the petitioner has acquired any valid title, vis-à-vis the land, the mere assurance of ORC, would not take it away. In as much as the petitioner is claiming rights through the ancestors of respondents 1 and 2, he has to work out his remedies, in the given set of circumstances. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 5-A of the Act, or to file a suit to enforce his rights, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:01.04.2009. GJ