THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 8 0 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The petitioners in WP.No.23280 of 2008 filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13-11-2008 of the learned single Judge, whereby he observed that the petitioners are of obtaining of Occupancy Rights Certificate by respondent no.3 in the year 1993, if not, atleast from the year 2000, when respondent no.3 filed the suit for injunction. The learned single Judge further observed that the petitioners, in spite of being aware of the fact that respondent no.3 obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificate, yet failed to question the same immediately and filed the appeal questioning the said order, after a lapse of nearly 15 years. Questioning the order of respondent no.2 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate, respondent no.1 refused to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 2. A perusal of the order under appeal shows that the said observations are made by the learned Judge on the admitted fact that in spite of being aware of the fact that respondent no.3 obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificate, yet failed to qu7estion the same immediately and filed the appeal questioning the said order, after a lapse of nearly 15 years. In view of the said fact, the above writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge.. 3. At the hearing, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was filed questioning the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate as confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground that the provisions for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate is based on the possession of the occupant. The learned Judge did not consider that the respondent no.3 was granted the Occupancy Rights Certificate over the land in issue basing on an unregistered sale deed. Unless possession is proved over the land, Occupancy Rights Certificate should not have been granted. Further the learned Judge did not consider that the appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector under section 24 of the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 along with a petition seeking to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. While granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to the respondent no.3, no statutory notice was served on the appellants and that respondent no.3 was never found in the revenue records pertaining to the land in issue, as such, the grant of Occupancy Rights shall become illegal. He further submitted that the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 is a welfare Act for occupants, as such, on the ground of delay, the appellants shall not be denied to question the Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the respondent no.3. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. The facts of the case are that admittedly one late Sri Erpula Pochaiah was the Inamdar of land in an extent of Acs:1-25 guntas in survey no.184 of Nagaram village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. It is stated that the petitioners claim that they are his legal heirs and that they having succeeded to the above said property after his death are in possession and enjoyment thereof. It is further stated that the name of late Sri Erpula Pochaiah, finds place in the revenue records right from the years 1959-60 to 1998-99. While things stood thus, respondent no.3 on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale deed, as if some of the petitioners have sold the land in question to him, obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 30-10-1993 in File No.J/6003/93 from respondent no.1, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy district. Thereafter, with a view to grab the property in question, filed OS.No.198 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, against appellants-petitioners 2, 5 and 8 for injunction. Thereafter, the appellants filed appeal under section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 along with delay condonation petition before respondent no.1, questioning the orders dated 30-10-1993 passed by the respondent no.2 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondent no.3. Respondent No.3 contested the appeal. Thereafter, respondent no.1, having considered the rival contentions vide orders dated 13-09-2008, impugned in the writ petition, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants at the hearing. A reading of the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, which recorded the stand taken by respondent no.3 would disclose that the appellants-petitioners were served with the notices before respondent no.2 granted Occupancy Rights Certificate, and in fact, they are even said to have attested on the said notices. The factum of respondent no.3 filing the suit without disclosing the obtaining of Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 30-10- 1993 is denied by respondent no.3, and in fact, it is specifically stated by respondent no.3 in the counter filed by him in the appeal that he filed certified copy of the Occupancy Rights Certificate and that petitioners 2, 5 and 9 appeared through counsel and contested the suit. From this stand taken by respondent no.3, which in fact, is recorded by respondent no.1 in the impugned order would make it clear that the appellants are aware of the obtaining of Occupancy Rights Certificate by respondent no.3 in the year 1993, if not, atleast from the year 2000 when respondent no.3 filed the suit for injunction. In the instant case on hand, the appellants have taken the plea of ignorance and absence of knowledge for condonation of delay. A mere plea of ignorance and absence of knowledge are not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Any person can invoke the plea of absence of knowledge and then set the very limitation law at naught. The real test in all such cases is the earliest opportunity the appellant had for securing knowledge of the impugned order. The appellants are staking a claim of occupancy of Inam lands ought to have applied for Occupancy Rights long back. The observations made by the first respondent in his order in case No.F1/1824/2008, dated 13-9-2008 are perfectly correct. The first respondent also observed that “Law enjoins alertness and vigilance and does not assist a person, who has slept over his rights for an extraordinary length of time”. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are in agreement with the view of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, as the appellants have not stated as to why they have not taken appropriate steps to file an appeal at an earlier point of time. 8. We see no reason to entertain this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI . ______________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 02/2/2009. I s L