THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2603 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the Joint Collector i.e. the first Respondent herein in case No.F2/IA 20/2008 whereby the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioners under Section 24(1) of A.P (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the order dated 09.06.2003 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Wanaparthy i.e. fourth Respondent herein. 2 Brief facts that led to filing of the present revision are that originally the grand father of the revision Petitioners by name Venkata Ramulu was the inamdar and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.13.19 guntas and Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.345 and 346 respectively of Chilimila village, Pebbair Mandal, who purchased the said lands in the year 1951 i.e. prior to the Abolition of Inams Act came into force and by virtue of the said purchase the Rights and interest of original inamdar have been inherited by said Venkata Ramulu and his name was recorded in ROR books and also in Kasra Pahanis in respect of the lands in the above two survey numbers. 3 However, as per the letter submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pebbair in C/5020/2006, dated 25.06.2006 stating that D. Ramaswamy son of the original inamdar Venkata Ramulu sold the lands in the above two survey numbers to Golla Ramulu and Golla Laxmanna and by virtue of the said purchase of the lands in the above two survey numbers, Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued in favour of the said Golla Ramulu and Golla Laxmanna under Inam Abolition Act and also for being in possession and enjoyment of the above said lands since 1985. 4 The grievance of the Petitioners is that since they are the grand sons of said Venkata Ramulu, they are entitled to inherit the said property. It is their further contention that some of the villagers of Chilimilla village had forged the signature of their father D. Ramaswamy and fabricated the documents of sale said to have been executed by Ramaswamy, who is the son of said Venkata Ramulu and that the said documents were brought into existence after the enforcement of A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and on the basis of those illegal documents, the unofficial Respondents had obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificates from the Revenue Divisional officer, Wanaparthy. 5 As aggrieved by the said issuance of ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 herein in File No.B/678/2003 & B/679/2003 dated 09.06.2003 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the revision Petitioners approached the Joint Collector by way of an appeal. Since there is a delay of 74 days in preferring the said appeal, the revision petitioners also filed an application to condone the said delay. However, the same was dismissed by the Joint Collector holding that the delay is not properly explained and further as per the documents on record, the first revision Petitioners and their father Ramswamy had entered into a mutual agreement with the Respondents 1 and 2 on 08.01.2003 for sale of the schedule property and stated that they had no objection if the purchasers would be granted ORCs by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy. The Joint Collector further observed that even after affording sufficient time and though several adjournments were given to the Petitioners they failed to explain the reasons of delay and sought further time. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by the Joint Collector, the Petitioners approached this court and filed the present revision. 6 Heard both sides. 7 Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not give notice to the revision Petitioners before granting the ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 herein basing on the fabricated documents put up by them and no body was examined to prove the genuineness of the said sale deeds. He further contended that the Joint Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer have erred in granting the ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 when the name of the original inamdar i.e. Venkata Ramulu who is the grand father of the revision Petitioners appears in the revenue records. The learned counsel further contended that the Joint Collector erred in holding that there is a delay of four years and four months in filing the appeal, but, in fact, the delay has to be calculated from the date of knowledge only, which in the instant case is only 74 days and the same ought to have been condoned if sufficient cause is shown. 8 On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the order passed by the Joint Collector is based on sound reasons and needs no interference. 9 I find force in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reason that the delay has to be calculated from the date of knowledge. As could be seen from the record, it appears, the Petitioners having come to know about the issuance of the ORCs in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 have applied for certified copies in the month of August 2007 and after obtaining the certified copies in the month of September 2007 the Petitioners filed appeal in December 2007. Hence there is delay of 74 days only. 10 Even otherwise, since it is the contention of the revision Petitioners that the documents basing upon which the ORCs were issued in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 are fictitious documents and nobody was examined to prove the genuineness of the said sale deeds, in my considered view, the Joint Collector ought to have decided the matter on merits by condoning the delay. So that the petitioners and the respondents in whose favour the occupancy right certificates have been issued would have been in a position to explain as to whether the said occupancy right certificates issued in favour of respondents 1 and 2 are on the basis of genuine documents or fabricated documents. Further, when substantive rights are involved, in my considered view, the delay would not be a factor to reject the case of the petitioners, particularly, when the delay is calculated as 74 days. 11 Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, and inasmuch as the Petitioners contend that the documents basing upon which the ORCs have been issued in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 are brought up documents, I condone the delay of 74 days in preferring the appeal and that the Joint Collector is directed to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to both parties, but on certain conditions. 12 Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order passed by the Joint Collector in Case No. F2/IA 20/2008 dated 21.04.2009 is set aside on condition of the Petitioners paying costs of an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. The appellate authority i.e. the Joint Collector is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties and also by taking into consideration the documentary evidence that may be put up both parties. It is needless to observe that the Petitioners as well as the Respondents 1 and 2 are liberty to ventilate their grievance before the Joint Collector to establish their case. Further, the Joint Collector is hereby directed not to get influenced by any of the findings or observations made by this court in this revision. He can exercise his own discretion in coming to the conclusion as to whether the appeal is to be allowed or dismissed. No costs. --------------- 30-12-2009 kvsn