IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1410 of 2014 Date: 18.11.2014 Between:
M. Srinath & others.
… Appellants And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1410 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 05.06.2014 in W.P.No.20278 of 2002 of the learned Single Judge.
The appellants had filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.A1/1285/75 dated 03.03.1980 as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings No.F1/106/2001 dated 08.07.2002, to quash the same and for consequential direction to the 1st respondent to grant the occupancy rights to them in respect of the subject land under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”).
The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that one Narsimlu was the original protected tenant of the land in question and after his death his eldest son applied for grant of occupancy right certificate as a legal representative, but he withdrew the said application paving the way for grant of occupancy right certificate to be granted under the proceedings dated 03.03.1980 in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 11.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellants cannot invoke the remedy of appeal in respect of the proceedings, which have become final as early as in 1980, by simply referring to the receipt of the certified copy of the occupancy right certificate on 08.12.2000. The learned Single Judge also held that once the eldest son of late Narsimlu withdrew the application for grant of occupancy right certificate and the appellants, who are the other legal heirs, did not take any timely action, they cannot question the grant of occupancy right certificate on 03.03.1980 to respondent Nos.2 to 11.
Although the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to contend that in view of Section 19 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, each of the legal heirs would have a distinct right in the property and are entitled to get an occupancy right certificate, the fact remains that none of the appellants had taken any timely action in the matter to question the occupancy right certificate granted on 03.03.1980 to respondent Nos.2 to 11. The plea of fraud or collusion between the eldest son of late Narsimlu and respondent Nos.2 to 11 being now advanced by the appellants cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. So it is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
Date: 18.11.2014 ES