THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6413 of 2010 Dated:25.03.2010 Between: Kalemalla Kistaiah, And others. ...Petitioners And Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6413 of 2010 ORDER: The dispute in this writ petition is in relation to the land in survey No.107/AA admeasuring Acs.8.27 guntas in Nyalata Village of Chevella Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The land is statedly registered as “Dastagarda” (inam land vested in the Government). The name of Gopal Rao was recorded as inamdar. The petitioners claim that their father – Yellaiah, and paternal uncle – Narayana, were shown to be in possession of the lands. The name of Konda Reddy was allegedly shown as protected tenants. The petitioners contend that the said Konda Reddy was never in possession, but with the connivance of his son – Narasimha Reddy, respondent Nos.3 to 6 tried to interfere with the alleged possession of the petitioners. Petitioners filed the suit, being O.S.No.64 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella. In the said suit the petitioners, it is alleged, came to know about the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 10.01.1986 issued by the second respondent in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6. They, therefore, filed the appeal before the first respondent. The same was dismissed on 05.01.2010 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The said order is assailed in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners contends that his clients had no knowledge of the proceedings before the second respondent leading to issue ORC dated 10.01.1986 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6. This submission is noted only for the purpose of rejection. When the petitioners allegedly were in continuous possession of the property it is impossible that they would not be aware of the proceedings under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act). Secondly if they are really in possession of the property they ought to have filed an application before the second respondent. They did not do so. They filed the suit twenty years after the second respondent granted ORC and then approached the Joint Collector by way of appeal. There is no dispute that under Section 24 of the Act an appeal has to be filed within a period of thirty days during such time as may be extended by the Joint collector. The petitioners did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, the Joint Collector was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred. The Writ Petition for the above reasons is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.03.2010 vs