Judgment:
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29204 of 2013 and batch dated: 09-10-2013 Mir Alamdar Ali.Petitioner The Joint Collector-I, Hyderabad and others .Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.Vijay B.Paropkari for Sr.S.Sanjeeva Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for other respondents: -- : : ?.Cases referred: 1.
(1996) 3 SCC3642.
(2000) 7 SCC5293.
(2012) 1 SCC83Common Order:
These writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has declined to condone the huge delay in filing the appeals against the orders granting Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in favour of the private respondents in these writ petitions.
The Revenue Divisional Officer (East Division).Ranga Reddy District, has granted ORCs in favour of the private respondents on different dates between the years 1978 and 1993.
The father of the petitioner, who claimed to be the owner of the lands in question, has contested the applications filed by the private respondents or their predecessors in title before the Revenue Divisional Officer in the proceedings initiated for grant of ORCs.
However, he has allowed the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer to attain finality.
The petitioner has woken up in the year 2013 and filed W.P.No.22035 of 2013 questioning the ORCs granted in favour of the private respondents.
This Court, not being convinced with the conduct of the petitioner in approaching the Court many years after issue of ORCs, was not to entertain the writ petition.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to his client to avail any other remedy available in law.
Accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.07.2013.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the purported appeals under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') questioning the grant of ORCs in favour of the private respondents.
In these appeals, the petitioner has also filed separate applications for condonation of enormous delays.
However, the appeals were dismissed by respondent No.1, by common order dated 02.09.2013, which is questioned in these writ petitions.
At the hearing, Sr.Vijay B.Paropkari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has not issued any notice and given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ORCs were issued on 31.03.1978, 24.09.1979, 31.03.1978, 02.09.1978 and 02.08.1993.
The petitioner filed the appeals with the delay of 35 1/2 yeaRs.34 1/2 yeaRs.35 1/2 yeaRs.35 years and 19 years and 11 months respectively in the respective appeals filed by him.
While, it would have been more ideal if respondent No.1 has issued a notice, having regard to the facts of the case, I felt that it was quite unnecessary for this Court to remand the case to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.
Instead, I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance his submissions on the delay applications, so that if this Court is convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, it would itself condone the delay.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner made his endeavour to convince this Court to condone the delays.
He has drawn this Court's attention to the reasons given by the petitioner in his affidavits filed in support of the condone delay applications filed in the appeals.
In para 3 of the affidavits, the petitioner has stated that his father applied for grant of ORC on 26.09.1975, that he died in the year 1994, that at the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was working as Area Manager in Caltex Oil in Saudi Arabia and that he has returned therefrom in the year 1997.
The petitioner has further stated that he was not aware of the facts relating to his father applying for ORC and that on 01.06.2013, when he was arranging the papers in the Almirah of his father, he has come across the proceedings pertaining to the subject lands and that on verification of the records, he did not find any notices being served on his father.
Even taking the most liberal view, no Court or quasi-judicial authority can condone the monumental delays committed by the petitioner in filing the appeals on those reasons.
If the petitioner returned to India in the year 1997, it is not possible to believe that till 01.06.2013, he had no occasion to look into the papers left behind by his father, who died as early as the year 1994.
Even if the fact that the petitioner had not come across the papers left by his father is true, that itself shows that the petitioner is guilty of lack of diligence in pursuing his rights.
A person, who was disinterested, cannot be permitted to rake up the stale claims at his will and leisure after 35 yeaRs.Even if respondent No.1 has given notice and afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, that would not have made any difference as the petitioner could not have improved his case over and above what he has stated in the affidavits filed in support of his applications for condonation of delay.
The useless formality theory propounded by the Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala versus S.K.Sharma1, Aligarh Muslim University v.
Mansoor Ali Khan2 and Ashwin S.
Mehta versus Union of India3 squarely applies to these writ petitions.
As noted hereinbefore, this Court has itself taken upon the task of examining whether the petitioner has made out any case for condonation of enormous delay in filing the appeals.
This Court is thoroughly satisfied that the explanation offered by the petitioner woefully falls short of sufficient cause warranting condontion of such huge delays.
For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of these writ petitions, W.P.M.Ps.
filed in these writ petitions by the petitioner for interim reliefs shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J09h October, 2013