HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24132 of 2003 Date: 19.02.2015 Between:
Cheguri Narasimha Reddy s/o. Shiva Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o.Tattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others.
AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairathabad, Hyderabad and others.
.. Petitioners .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24132 of 2003 ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings No.F1/105/2001, dated 26.04.2003. By the said orders, the Joint Collector remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division to consider the matter afresh. He was also directed to enquire into the classification of the lands in question and pass appropriate orders by putting on notice all the persons interested.
2. Petitioners claim that they have purchased the land in Sy.Nos.121, 122, 124, 125 and 126 of Thattiannaram village in Hayathnagar Mandal from the persons in whose favour Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) were issued. The vendors of the petitioners were issued three ORCs on 14.02.1979, 31.05.1979 and 26.05.1979. Against the issuance of the above ORCs, Mohd.Mahamooduddin (4th respondent herein) filed three separate appeals before the Collector, Ranga Reddy District in case Nos.B3/9208/1983. The Collector vide his order dated 25.06.1985 dismissed the appeals.
3. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Collector, the appellant therein filed three separate writ petitions questioning three orders passed by the appellate authority against three ORCs issued viz., WP Nos. 18202, 19358 and 19362 of 1987. The petitioner raised three contentions. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 18.07.1990, directing the competent authority to reconsider only on the issue of entitlement of inamdar of the lands for share in the subject lands. No further steps were taken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the above three writ petitions.
4. The 4th respondent herein and his family members filed fresh appeals before the Joint Collector in the year 2003 against granting of ORC to vendors of petitioners. These appeals were entertained and by the orders impugned in this writ petition matter was remitted. Aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Collector, this Writ Petition is preferred.
5. Heard Sri G.Satya Veer Reddy counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents 1,2 and 47 and Sri V.Raj Gopal Reddy, counsel for respondents 3 to 34.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners assails this order of the Joint Collector on following grounds; firstly, when the earlier appeals were dismissed, those appeals have become final on account of the orders passed by this Court in three writ petitions filed against three appeals except to a limited extent, on which it was remitted. Thus, further appeals on the same subject are not maintainable and, therefore, ought not to have been entertained by the Joint Collector; secondly, even assuming that appeals are maintainable, entertaining the appeals after long lapse of 22 years from the date of issuance of ORC and considering the appeals on merit is wholly illegal, without power and jurisdiction and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. It is further contended that each occupancy right certificate is independent and if the person intend to prefer appeal against the issuance of such certificate, he has to prefer separate appeal against each of the orders. In fact, one of the respondents did prefer three separate appeals initially, whereas this time single appeal was filed. Learned counsel therefore contends that Joint Collector erred in entertaining single appeal against three separate certificates issued and passing common order and the same has to be set aside on this ground alone.
7. Learned counsel further contends that it is not permissible for the appellants to change the stand before the appellate authority in the subsequent appeals contrary to the earlier stand when appeals were filed initially and before this Court when writ petitions were filed aggrieved by the orders in those appeals. In the earlier round of litigation the contesting respondents have taken the stand that they were the inamdars and they were entitled for issuance of occupancy right certificates. In the second round of appeal, they have changed version from that of status as inamdars to that of ownership and disputing the status of the land in issue. He contends that it is not permissible to change the stand on the very same issue, more so having invited finding from the appellate authority and from this court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 37 to 46 are impleaded as proforma respondents; no relief is sought against them. They are persons, in whose favour occupancy right certificates were granted and they are the vendors of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that petitioners purchased the land long ago. They contested all three writ petitions earlier filed against the orders of the Collector dated 25.06.1985. Petitioners contested all the appeals filed in the year 2003.
9. Sri Raja Gopal Reddy, counsel, appearing for the contesting respondents other than respondents 37 to 46 contends that under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, no time limit is prescribed and, therefore, appeal is validly entertained by the Joint Collector. He further contends that appellate authority having found grave illegality in granting ORCs by the original authority without first ascertaining the status of the land has validly remitted the matter back to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue and such order was perfectly valid and legal. Unless the classification satisfies the requirement of Inams Abolition Act, the question of grant of ORC does not arise. The original authority acquires the power to grant ORC only if it is inam land and without considering the status of the land, he could not have granted ORC. Thus, the decision of the Joint Collector remitting the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer was validly taken. When there is patent illegality in issuing ORC, the claim of delay is not attracted.
10. The issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether the decision of the Joint Collector impugned in the writ petition to entertain the appeals filed by the contesting respondents and remitting the matter for consideration afresh with reference to entitlement of the vendors of the petitioners to obtain occupancy right certificates is valid?
11. The history of the litigation would show that against issuance of Occupancy Right Certificates in the year 1979, Sri. Md. Mahamooduddin filed appeals before the Collector challenging the issuance of said certificates by raising various contentions. It was the contention of the appellant that his late father Mohd.Asraf was the inamdar of lands in Sy.Nos.121, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 of Thattiannaram Village of Hayathnagar Taluq. During the life time of his father, he applied for ORC under the Inam Abolition Act, 1955. The then Sub-Collector in his proceedings dated 02.12.1978 rejected the claim on the ground that above survey numbers are Balwatha Inam/ Service inam not covered under the provisions of the Act. It was his stand that his father was the inamadar and, therefore, his father was entitled to issuance of ORC and it was illegally denied to the father of the appellant. Having denied the issuance of ORC, the same authority could not have issued ORC to the vendors of the petitioners herein. It was further contented that neither inamdar nor the appellant was put on notice before granting ORC. It was held that the father of the appellant was not in possession of the lands in issue as on the crucial date and, therefore, even assuming that father of the appellant was inamdar, he was not entitled to issuance of ORC under Inams Abolition Act. Having come to the said conclusion, the appeals filed by the appellant were rejected affirming the ORCs issued in favour of the vendors of the petitioners.
12. Aggrieved by the said orders of the appellate authority, three writ petitions were filed. Three contentions were urged before this Court. The first contention was that illegally petitioner’s father application for grant of ORC was not granted even though he was inamdar, whereas on the same ground ORC was granted to the vendors of the petitioners herein. This Court held that it was not on the ground that petitioner’s father was not inamdar, but on the ground that he was not in possession, the application was rejected. The second contention that no notice was given to the petitioner was also rejected by this Court referring to the orders passed by the District Collector. The further contention raised was that petitioner was inamdar and the persons in whose favour ROC granted was protected tenants and while granting pattas in their favour, the landlord ought to have been granted his share. With reference to the third contention, this Court remitted the matter to the limited extent indicated in the last para of the Order of this Court.
13. As contended by the counsel for the petitioners which fact is not denied by the respondents, that after the orders of this Court, no further orders are passed by the competent authority with reference to the entitlement of the landlord for a share of the land in accordance with the provisions of Inams Abolition Act consequent to the grant of ORCs in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and the issue has attained finality. Having regard to the fact that the validity of issuance of ORCs having become final, it is not open to any authority to entertain fresh appeals and to order for reconsideration of the entire matter. These issues were specifically brought to the notice of the appellate authority by the petitioners and the same was recorded by the appellate authority. There is no discussion on the orders passed by this Court while remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Joint Collector erred in entertaining the appeals and considering the matter afresh on the same issues which attained finality.
14. Any decision affecting the rights of persons must have finality at one stage or the other. It cannot be reopened at the whim of any person as and when deemed convenient to such person. In the instant case, the original appeal was dismissed on 25.6.1985. To a great extent, appeals were affirmed by this Court on 18.07.1990. After 13 years from the date of disposal of the writ petition and after 18 years of original order in appeal and 23 years after issuance of ORC, appeal was entertained. There is no discussion in the order passed by the Joint Collector as to what compelled him to entertain the appeal after such long time and passing the orders directing lower authority to reconsider the entire issue. As contended by the counsel for the petitioners, in the mean time layout was formed, the land was divided into house site plots and plots were sold and houses were constructed and people are living in the housing colony for several years. On account of orders passed after such a long lapse of time, everything stands upset. It certainly affects all the property owners at this distance of time.
15. Even though Section 24 of the Act prescribes 30 days time to prefer an appeal against any decision, appeal was preferred after 23 years. There is no provision in the Act to entertain second appeal on the same issue by same authority. Though discretion vested in the appellate authority to condone the delay for sufficient cause, 23 years delay cannot be said as reasonable, more particularly when the parties were litigating for decades and were aware of the ORCs issued to vendors of petitioners. The 4th respondent is a family member of party respondents. Earlier he was litigating individually and now all the family members joined with him. The property in issue is traced to father of 4th respondent by all family members. Entertaining the appeal under Section 24 after long lapse of time when the statute prescribes only 30 days for filing such appeal amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
16. Having regard to the above findings, the order under challenge is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside.
17. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 19.02.2015 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24132 of f 2003 Date: 19.02.2015 kkm