IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18216 of 2005 Between: Mohd. Azmath … Petitioner AND Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Krishna L. Gahlothi for Sri. V. Venkataramana Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P.V. Narayana Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18216 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 16.07.2005 passed by respondent No.1 and to direct respondent No.1 to decide the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the grant of Occupancy Rights Certiﬁcate (for short, ‘ORC’) in favour of respondent No.3. The issue pertains to Ac.3.00 guntas out of Ac.9.17 guntas in Sy.No.1285 of Shamirpet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In respect of the said land ORC was issued in favour of respondent No.3 in the year 1996. The petitioner ﬁled appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) along with an application to condone delay of six years three months and 26 days in ﬁling the appeal. Respondent No.1, who is the appellate authority before whom the said appeal along with the application was ﬁled, rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge of grant of ORC in the year 1998 in view of filing of civil suit against him. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.1 has not mentioned the number of the civil suit and at any rate he was never a party to the civil suit. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, he categorically asserted that one Mohd. Azmat, who is no other than the brother of the petitioner, was the defendant in O.S.No.160 of 1998 and that the petitioner, being a member of the joint family, had knowledge of the said suit in which a written statement was ﬁled, wherein a reference to the grant of ORC in the year 1996 was made. Learned counsel invited my attention to WP.No.13810 of 2003 ﬁled by Mohd. Azmath, the brother of the petitioner through the petitioner as GPA in order to show that the petitioner and his brother were in cordial terms and the petitioner himself was acting on behalf of his brother wherever it was necessary. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner neither disclosed ﬁling of the civil suit by respondent No.3 to which his brother was admittedly a party nor contended that he was not aware of any such civil suit ﬁled against his brother. From these facts, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the reasoning of respondent No.1, who presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of grant of ORC at least in the year 1998, albeit on the premise that he was a party to the civil suit though his brother was a party. As there was inordinate delay of more than six years in ﬁling the appeal, respondent No.1 did not commit any error in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24075 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.09.2008 ES