Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 24 (TS)

Balsetty Ramachandraiah v. State of Telangana

2025-01-29

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K.LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Rohith, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kusuru Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 13. 2. W.P.No.12131 of 2024 is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 i.e, Additional Collector, Revenue (FAC), Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/5731/2016 dated 30.05.2023 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar by setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners’ father i.e., Balsetty Chinnaiah vide D.Dis.No.IA/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 ). 3. W.P.No.15971 of 2024 is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 i.e, Additional Collector, Revenue (FAC), Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/5745/2016 dated 30.05.2023 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar by setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners vide file No.K/613/91 dated 30.03.1991 under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. 4. The lis involved in both the writ petitions and respondents are one and the same, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order. 5. The contentions of the petitioners in W.P.No.12131 of 2024: a) Originally, one late Vijender Reddy was recorded as Maqthadar of the land total admeasuring Ac.427 guntas in Sy.No.548 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Kothur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District). According to the Revenue authorities, it is a Dastagard Inam land. The name of the land is known as “Yangannagari Pampu Dastagard”. b) The said land in Sy.No.548 was assigned more than 100 new survey numbers. The petitioners are claiming right over the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac.9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village. The father of the petitioners was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land and as such, his name was also duly recorded in the revenue records. In proof of the same, they have filed copies of pahanies for the years 1973-74, form-I of old ROR. The father of the petitioners was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land and as such, his name was also duly recorded in the revenue records. In proof of the same, they have filed copies of pahanies for the years 1973-74, form-I of old ROR. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar for declaration to declare them as absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas out of 10.24 guntas in Sy.No.100 and also for recovery of possession. c) As per the contents of the plaint, respondents 6 to 13 were never in possession of the subject property as legal heirs of alleged protected tenant Sri Erragari Sayanna. d) Petitioners filed written statement in the said suit contending that after causing due enquiry by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Mehboobnagar under the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, vide proceedings D.Dis No.I.A./5418/78 dated 26.01.1981, Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of their father i.e., Balsetty Chinnaiah, in respect of the aforesaid land. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also considered relevant date of resting i.e., 01.01.1973. e) In O.S.No.34 of 2004, respondent Nos.6 to 13 filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.170 of 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the said suit against the petitioners contending that plaintiffs sold an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.100 to defendants Nos.4 and 5 under unregistered sale deeds for valid consideration and delivered its exclusive possession to them on the same day. Ever since from the date of purchase, till today, defendants Nos.4 and 5 therein are in continuous, peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of their purchased land property. Subsequently, respondents 4 and 5 therein obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate with respect to their purchased land from the concerned Revenue authorities in file No.D/Dis./I.A./5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 with the knowledge and acceptance of plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs specifically and categorically declares that ever since from the date of alienation of the land to defendant Nos.4 and 5, plaintiffs have not sought of right, claim, whatsoever against the property holding by defendants 4 and 5. But, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are made as parties to the suit on the legal advice only. Therefore, plaintiffs decided to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and also to maintain cordial relation with them. But, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are made as parties to the suit on the legal advice only. Therefore, plaintiffs decided to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and also to maintain cordial relation with them. f) Respondent Nos.6 to 13 also filed a memo dated 27.06.2011 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 seeking permission to withdraw the suit against the defendants 4 and 5. On consideration of the said aspects, learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, allowed the said I.A., granting permission to the respondents 6 to 13 herein/plaintiffs in O.S.No.34 of 2004 to withdraw the claim against the defendant Nos.4 and 5. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed against defendants on merits on 31.12.2012. g) On 10.05.2013, respondents 6 to 13 preferred an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 claiming that one Eerragari Saiga @ Sayanna was common ancestor of their family. The said Erragari Sayanna had three sons namely Erragari Pentaiah, Eerragari Buchaiah and Eerragari Jangaiah. After the death of Eerragari Saiga @ Sayanna, his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 13 herein succeeded the said property, they are in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac.9.11 gunts in Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District. h) With the said contentions, respondents 6 to 13 sought to set aside the Occupancy Right Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners herein dated 26.01.1981. i) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahboobabad issued Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the father of the petitioners. On consideration of relevant date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973 with regard to occupation over the land by the father of the petitioners i.e., Late Balsetty Chinnaiah. Statement showing 38 E/final list was also filed. The said appeal was preferred with an abnormal delay of 22 years without explaining the delay. j) The petitioners made the aforesaid contentions including filing of O.S.No.34 of 2004 and I.A.No.170 of 2011 and also memo dated 27.11.2011. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 also preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2004 dated 31.12.2012. The said appeal is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. j) The petitioners made the aforesaid contentions including filing of O.S.No.34 of 2004 and I.A.No.170 of 2011 and also memo dated 27.11.2011. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 also preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2004 dated 31.12.2012. The said appeal is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. Thus, having withdrawn suit against the petitioners after dismissal of the said suit, respondents 6 to 13 preferred appeal under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, assailing Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 after more than 30 years. They have not explained the delay in filing the said appeal and they did not even file an application condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. They have not pleaded fraud in the grounds of appeal. k) The only contention raised by the respondents 6 to 13 in the said appeal was that the Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 26.01.1981 was issued in favour of their father without issuing any notice. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023, the 2 nd respondent allowed the said appeal, remanded the matter back to the 4 th respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct discreet enquiry with reference to the revenue records, duly verifying whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting all the interested persons on notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 6. The contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.15971 of 2024: a) The petitioners are claiming right over the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 and 4.21 guntas total admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the petitioners are illiterates, they have not get their names mutated in the revenue record. However, they are cultivating the said land. The name of Erragari Pentaiah was recorded as occupier in respect of the land in Sy.No.100 admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in the pahanis for the year 1985-86. Islavath Desya S/o Rupla was recorded. Therefore, to avoid litigation, petitioners also obtained registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.126 of 1984 and 127 of 1984 both dated 19-01-1984 and 2331 of 1989 dated 07-08-1989. The name of Islavath Desya was recorded as cultivator in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 in pahani for the year 1987-88. Therefore, to avoid litigation, petitioners also obtained registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.126 of 1984 and 127 of 1984 both dated 19-01-1984 and 2331 of 1989 dated 07-08-1989. The name of Islavath Desya was recorded as cultivator in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 in pahani for the year 1987-88. In Form No.I, ROR issued for the year 1989- 90, the names of Meghavath Shekia, Megavath Sakri and Islavath Deshya were recorded as the purchasers of the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, Ac.1.20 guntas and Ac.4.21 guntas respectively in Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village. b) After conducting due enquiry and verifying the records, Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in favor of writ petitioners vide file No. K/613/91, dated 30.03.1991 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 and Ac. 4.21 guntas total Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village. c) Despite executing the above referred registered sale deeds, respondents 6 to 11 filed a suit vide O.S.No. 34 of 2004 against the writ petitioners and also against one Balsetty Ramachandraiah and Balsetty Yadaiah seeking to declare them as absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 situated at Nandigama Village and also for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed on 31-12-2012 on merits. The writ petitioners filed written statement in the said suit contending that they have obtained aforesaid Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 30.03.1991 in File No. K/613/91 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas and Ac.4.21 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 of Nandiagama Village. After dismissal of the said suit, respondent Nos.6 to 11 preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector in the month of April 2013 under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 challenging the ORC dated 30.03.1991 issued in favour of the petitioners. They have not alleged fraud in the grounds of appeal. The said appeal was filed only on the ground that notices were not issued to them. They also preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree and judgment dated 31.12.2012 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 and the same is pending. They have not alleged fraud in the grounds of appeal. The said appeal was filed only on the ground that notices were not issued to them. They also preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 challenging the decree and judgment dated 31.12.2012 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Joint Collector filed under Section 24(1) of Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, respondent Nos.6 to 11 filed three suits i.e O.S.No.55 of 2017, 56 of 2017 and 57 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar for cancellation of registered sale deeds executed in favor of the writ petitioners. All the said suits were dismissed for default on 14.09.2023. d) The said aspects were specifically stated by the petitioners in the counter filed before the respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid appeal. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023 respondent No.3 allowed the said appeal remanded the matter back to the 4 th respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct discreet enquiry with reference to the revenue records, duly verifying whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting all the interested persons on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 7. The contentions of the respondents in both the writ petitions: a) Late Erragari Saiga @ Sayanna was the common ancestor of their family. He had three sons namely Erragari Pentaiah, Erragari Buchaiah and Erragari Jangaiah. Erragari Pentaiah had three sons i.e late Erragari Anjaiah, Erragari Jangaiah and Erragari Sayanna. Erragari Parvathamma is the wife of Erragari Anjaiah and Erragari Jangaiah and Erragari Sayanna are the legal heirs of Erragari Pentaiah. Erragari Buchaiah had three sons namely Erragari Ramaiah, Erragari Jangaiah and Erragari Swamy. Erragari Pochamma is the wife of Erragari Buchaiah. There is no relationship between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. b) Erragari Sayanna and 10 others were protected tenants over the land in Sy.No.548 admeasuring Acs.427 guntas situated at Nandigama Village, Ranga Reddy District. Late Vijayender Reddy was the pattadar of the said land. After the death of the said Erragari Sayanna, his legal heirs succeeded the said property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac. Late Vijayender Reddy was the pattadar of the said land. After the death of the said Erragari Sayanna, his legal heirs succeeded the said property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and Ac. 9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101. As per Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the protected tenancy is an inheritable interest on the legal heirs of actual protected tenants. c) It is further contended that originally, there were eleven protected tenants over the land admeasuring Ac.427 guntas in Sy.No.548 situated at Nandigama Village and they were Erragari Sayanna and 10 others. Late Vijayendar Reddy was the Pattadar of the said land. The old Sy.No.548 was divided into more than 100 new survey numbers and one such a survey no is. 100 and 101 on which only Erragari Sayanna was the protected tenant over land in Sy.Nos.100 and 101 of Nandigama Village. The agriculture land in Sy.No.100 to an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 and land admeasuring Ac.9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101, other lands are Dastagard Inam lands. Late Erragari Sayanna, who was the protected tenant possessing over the land admeasuring Ac.10.21 guntas in Sy.No. 100 and Ac.9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101 of Nandigama Village. After his death, his sons cultivating the said land and their names were also recorded in the revenue records. The legal heirs of late Erragari Sayanna are in possession of the subject property in Sy.Nos.100 and 101. Neither late Balsetty Chinnaiah nor his legal heirs were in possession over the land in Sy.No.100 admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas and Ac. 9.11 guntas in Sy.No.101. Even then, without knowledge of unofficial respondents, one Meghavath Shekya and the writ petitioners got mutated the land to an extent of Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.100 in the revenue records. Having no other option, unofficial respondents filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2004 seeking declaration and recovery of possession. The same was dismissed on 31-12-2012 on the ground that the writ petitioners/defendants in the said suit, obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificates. During pendency of the said suit, on the advice of the plaintiffs’ counsel, they have filed a memo in the month of June, 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the said suit against the petitioners herein and filed an amendment petition. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. During pendency of the said suit, on the advice of the plaintiffs’ counsel, they have filed a memo in the month of June, 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the said suit against the petitioners herein and filed an amendment petition. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. d) Thereafter, on the advice of counsel, they have obtained copies of the said Occupancy Rights Certificates and filed appeal on 04.04.2013 challenging the said Occupancy Right Certificates contending that the writ petitioners are nothing to do with the subject property. They are not the legal heirs of Erragari Saiga @ Sayanna protected tenant in respect of the subject property. Only legal heir of protected tenants are entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificate and they should be in possession of the subject property as on the date of vesting i.e 01-11-1973. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023, respondent No.3 allowed the said appeals and remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 with a direction to conduct discreet enquiry with reference to revenue records duly verifying as to whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting all the interested parties on notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. There is no error in the said orders. 8. Both Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao and Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao learned Senior Counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, made their submissions extensively referring to the writ petitions, counters and reply affidavit. 9. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the following judgments: a) “ R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir , (1992) 4 SCC 683 , A.C. Anantha Swamy & Others Vs. Boraiah (Dead) by LRs., (2004) 8 SCC 588 ” b) “ T.S. Anand and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Others , 2022 (4) ALD 295 (TS) ” c) “ D.Narasimha Rao Vs. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and Others” , 2023 (4) ALD 558 (TS)(DB) d) “ Devireddy Srikanth Reddy & another Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others , 2024 (2) ALD 576 (TS) ” e) “ Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. State of Telangana and others , W.A.No.242 of 2020 decided on 26.08.2020 ” f) “ Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others , 2024 (2) ALD 576 (TS) ” e) “ Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. State of Telangana and others , W.A.No.242 of 2020 decided on 26.08.2020 ” f) “ Chennagalla Jangaiah & Others Vs. The State of Telangana & others , SLP (C) No.14113 of 2020 decided on 27.11.2020 ” g) “ Rattan Singh and Others Vs. Nirmal Gill and Others , (2021) 15 Supreme Court Cases 300 ” h) “ Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham Vs. K. Suresh Reddy and Others , (2003) 7 SCC 667 ” i) “ Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2013) 14 SCC 81 ” j) “ K. Chandra Prakash and another Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Another , 2021 (5) ALD 131 (TS) ” and h) “ Union of India and Another Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lr , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 ” 10. In support of his submissions, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: a) “ B. Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and Others , (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 102 b) “ K. Chandra Prakash (Supra), Syed Hussan Sab (died) per LRs. Vs. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and Others , 2010 (4) ALD 413 ” and c) “ State of Orissa and others Vs. Brundan Sharma and another , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 11. The aforesaid rival submissions and contentions of the parties would reveal that the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions had filed an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the writ petitioners challenging the Occupancy Rights Certificates vide proceedings No.D.Dis.No.IA/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981 and F1/5745/2016 dated 30.03.1991. 12. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents filed the said appeal after a lapse of 33 years without even filing an application to condone the delay, explaining the said abnormal delay in preferring the appeal. Unofficial respondents have to prefer an appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 within 30 days. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents filed the said appeal after a lapse of 33 years without even filing an application to condone the delay, explaining the said abnormal delay in preferring the appeal. Unofficial respondents have to prefer an appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 within 30 days. They have not preferred the same within 30 days and not even filed any application to condone the delay by explaining the delay. 13. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, deals with appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed authority. IT is extracted hereunder: “i) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under section 10 may, within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final. ii) If any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final.” 14. Thus, appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of decision; however, the appellate authority has power to condone the delay on explaining the satisfactory cause/reason. 15. In the present case, the appeals were filed on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013 challenging the ORCs dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991. Admittedly, they have not filed the said appeals within 30 days from the date of the said orders, they have not filed any applications to condone the delay and they have not explained the satisfactory reasons in preferring the appeals. 16. It is settled principle that under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, respondent No.3-appellate authority has power to condone the delay. But the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions neither filed any application to condone the delay nor explained the delay. 17. The said aspect was fell for consideration before this Court in “A.C.Anantha Swamy and others (supra), T.S. Anand and another(supra)”, “D. Narsimha Rao (supra), Devi Reddy Srikanth Reddy and another” (supra) and “Chennagalla Jangaiah and others” (supra). But the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions neither filed any application to condone the delay nor explained the delay. 17. The said aspect was fell for consideration before this Court in “A.C.Anantha Swamy and others (supra), T.S. Anand and another(supra)”, “D. Narsimha Rao (supra), Devi Reddy Srikanth Reddy and another” (supra) and “Chennagalla Jangaiah and others” (supra). This Court had an occasion to deal with filing of appeals beyond 30 days without even filing applications of the condonation of delay and the parties therein obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer by playing fraud. On examination of the facts in the said cases, this Court held that the factum of fraud was pleaded, and proved by producing evidence. Simply making a bald assertion that fraud has been played by obtaining the order, without giving the details as to how and in what manner fraud is played, will not initiate the proceedings, more so, respondent No.5 therein has participated in the said proceedings and filed a compromise memo. The Courts have held that mere assertions that orders are obtained by fraud will not reshape the said proceedings, but the same has to be pleaded in empathetic terms and proved by the party asserting and by leading evidence. 18. In the said case, Joint Collector allowed the appeals filed by the parties therein setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificates issued in favor of the parties. The said appeals were filed with the delay of 18 years. 19. The Apex Court in catena of decisions categorically held that various appeals prescribed for particular period for preferring an appeal/revision, as the case may be, the aggrieved party has to file such appeal/revision within the prescribed time of limitation. If there is any delay in approaching the appellate authority/regional authority, the parties obligated in filing application seeking condonation of delay duly explaining the reasons and also showing the sufficient cause. In the absence of the same, the appeal has to thrown out at the threshold by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. Even if a party claim that they can plead delay in the appeal itself, there is no need of filing separate application seeking condonation of delay since the appellate authorities are quasi judicial official, even then, parties have to explain the delay in preferring the appeal satisfactorily. 20. Even if a party claim that they can plead delay in the appeal itself, there is no need of filing separate application seeking condonation of delay since the appellate authorities are quasi judicial official, even then, parties have to explain the delay in preferring the appeal satisfactorily. 20. On consideration of the said facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, this Court set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority/Joint Collector. 21. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court in “ D. Narsimha Rao” (supra) found fault with the line of reasoning adopted by the Single Judge in condoning the delay and upholding the order passed by the appellate authority. 22. In “ Devireddy Srikanth Reddy and another” (supra), the appeals were filed after 17 years without explaining the delay. On examination of the facts therein, this Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the appellate authority. This Court also placed reliance on the principle laid down by a Full Bench in “Executive Officer, group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahbubnagar Dist. Vs. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar and others , 2023 (1) ALD 83 ” , wherein a full Bench of this Court held that only legal heirs of protected tenant is entitled for Occupancy Rights Certificates. 23. It is relevant to note that the said judgment is under challenge and the Apex Court granted Status-quo on 01-02-2023. 24. “ Chennagala Jangaiah and others” (supra) appeals were filed after a lapse of 33 years. On examination of the facts therein, a Division Bench of this Court held that ORC was granted on 30.01.1981, it is difficult to assume that a person enjoying the agriculture lands does not have any information about the entries in the revenue records. The appeal was infact filed after a lapse of 33 years from the date when the ORC was granted. Assuming that date of knowledge was in the year 2006, when the revision was filed by the appellants, still there is delay of more than 6 years and there is no explanation whatsoever in the delay condonation affidavit filed in the appeal before the Joint collector as to the date of knowledge and also the cause of such delay . With the said observations, this Court dismissed the writ appeal confirming the orders passed by a Single Judge. With the said observations, this Court dismissed the writ appeal confirming the orders passed by a Single Judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the said order of the Division Bench vide order dated 27.11.2020 in Special Leave vide SC No.14499 of 2020. 25. In “ R.N. Gosain” (supra), the Apex Court held that law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. The said principle is based on a doctrine of election which oscillate that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time that the transaction is valid and thereby obtained some advantage, to which he could not only be entitled to contend that it is valid and then turn around and to say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. 26. In “A.C.Anantha Swamy and others” (supra), the Apex Court held that mere pleading of fraud is not sufficient, fraud is to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to be knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases is extremely higher. An Unambiguous statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation. 27. In the said case, the Apex court examined the facts of the said case i.e., as to whether summons were served or not. There was a bare allegation of fraud. The Hon’ble Apex court considered the principle laid down by it in “ Choksi Bhidarbhai Mathurbhai Vs. Purushottamdas Bhogilal Shah , AIR 1962 Guj 10 : (1961) 2 Guj LR 509 ” wherein the Apex Court held that where the only fraud alleged is a bare non-service of summons, then such a suit to set aside the decree on alleged ground of fraud was not maintainable. Referring to the said principle, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant therein. 28. In “ Ratan Singh and others” (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered that party who pleads fraud has to plead the following two ingredients: 1. Existence of fraud 2. Discovery of such fraud. 29. Referring to the said principle, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant therein. 28. In “ Ratan Singh and others” (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered that party who pleads fraud has to plead the following two ingredients: 1. Existence of fraud 2. Discovery of such fraud. 29. The Apex Court also placed reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and effect of fraud or mistake. On examination of the facts of the said case, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery and therefore, plaintiff cannot be extended benefit under the said provision. 30. In “ Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam” (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle. 31. In “ Basawaraj and another” (supra), the Apex Court held that while condoning the delay, Courts have to exercise discretion judiciously based on the facts and circumstance of each case. Sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. Even though the limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. “Inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. If the Courts start substituting period of limitation, then it would amount to legislation, which is impermissible. If party acted with negligence, lack of bonafides or inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay by imposing the conditions. 32. In “ Chandra Prakash” (supra), on examination of facts therein, more particularly, execution of registered sale deeds in favor of the parties by the original Inamdars, it was held that the appellate authority being Quasi Judicial Officer cannot go into all the said aspects and it is for the Civil Court to decide the same. 33. 32. In “ Chandra Prakash” (supra), on examination of facts therein, more particularly, execution of registered sale deeds in favor of the parties by the original Inamdars, it was held that the appellate authority being Quasi Judicial Officer cannot go into all the said aspects and it is for the Civil Court to decide the same. 33. In “Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy , 2013 (12) SCC 649 ”, this Court made the following observations: “21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harboring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 34. The Apex Court in “Union of India and Another” (supra) and “Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 34. The Apex Court in “Union of India and Another” (supra) and “Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others , 2021 18 SCC 384 ” held the said principle. The Apex Court found fault with condonation of delay of 1011 days which is not explained and sufficient cause was not shown. 35. In “ Chandra Prakash” (supra), this Court considered the provisions of Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and date of vesting from 01.11.1973 and observed that the Act not only envisages the grant of ORC in favour of only the persons who are enumerated under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, but also that they should be in personal cultivation/possession of the subject lands as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. Unless and until the person meets these two criteria, the ORC cannot be issued. 36. In “ Syed Hussain Sab” (supra), this Court found that while considering the applications filed seeking Occupancy Rights Certificates, the Primary Tribunal i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider as to whether the case of the applicants would fall in one of the following five categories of holders of land i.e., Inamdars, Kalize-e-Khadim, Permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants, and further to prove that any of the category, they have to show that as on the date of vesting, they were in possession of Inam lands as on 01.11.1973. This Court further held that the said persons who are seeking Occupancy Rights Certificates as proof that any one of the category and that they have to show as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973, they were in possession of Inam lands. 37. The full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in “ Sada Vs. Tahsildar , AIR 1988 AP 77 ”, paragraph No.44, held as follows: “44. In our view, this contention is not correct. If a protected tenant is already in physical possession on the date of notification there is no problem at all. If proceedings under Ss. 19, 32 or 44 are pending, the date of vesting gets itself postponed. If the ‘protected tenancy’ stood validly terminated by the date of notification under Ss. In our view, this contention is not correct. If a protected tenant is already in physical possession on the date of notification there is no problem at all. If proceedings under Ss. 19, 32 or 44 are pending, the date of vesting gets itself postponed. If the ‘protected tenancy’ stood validly terminated by the date of notification under Ss. 19, 32 or 44, in that ease, no certificate at all can be issued. But, as long as a person continued to be a protected tenant either under S. 34, 37, or 37-A, as per the Act and has not lost that status, whether he is in actual possession or not on the date of notification, and is also to be ‘deemed’ to be in possession under the first part of the Explanation (subject to S. 32(7) and the proviso to S. 38- E(1), the ownership stands transferred straight away to such protected tenant by the very force of S. 38-E(1), Further, S. 38-E(2) read with the A.P. (TA) Protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 contemplate a fullfledged inquiry after notice to the landholders or after hearing objections of any other interested person (vide Rules 4, 5) Once a certificate is issued, the same is, under S. 38-E(2). ‘conclusive evidence’ of the ownership of the protected tenant, and cannot be defeated by the result of any inquiry under second part of the Explanation to S. 38-E Another reason for this view is that the inquiry under S. 38-E(2) read with the Rules of 1973 referred to above, is to be done by the Tribunal (the Revenue Divisional Officer) and obviously his decision to grant the ownership certificate will not and cannot be jeopardised by the result of any inquiry by a subordinate official like the Tahsildar, who deals with the granting of possession to a ‘protected tenant’.” 38. The said principle was also held by Apex Court in “ Boddam Narsimha v. Hasan Ali Khan , 2007 11 SCC 410 ”. Placing reliance on the said principle, this Court in “ B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and Others , (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 102 ” , held that the interest of protected tenant continuous to be operative and subsisting so long as “protected tenancy” is not validly terminated. Placing reliance on the said principle, this Court in “ B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and Others , (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 102 ” , held that the interest of protected tenant continuous to be operative and subsisting so long as “protected tenancy” is not validly terminated. Even if such protected tenant has lost possession of the land in question, that by itself does not terminate the “protected tenancy”. In the absence of such valid termination of protected tenancy, the interest of such protected tenant continued to be operative and subsisting in law and could devolve on his legal heirs and representatives who could then claim restoration of possession. Even if the protected tenant had lost possession, without being valid termination of his status as a protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protection under the Act. The said principle was also laid down by the full Bench in “ Sada” (supra). 39. Further, in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Brudaban Sharma and Another , 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 249 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is settled law that when the revisional power was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable manner which limitation is an assurance to exercise the power with caution of circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of provision of the Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities or fraud or suppression. Length of time depends on the factual scenario in the given case. Take a case that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it comes to the notice of the authorities after a long lapse of time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away with the order? Does the lapse of time an excuse to reframe from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right. The answer would be no. 40. On examination of facts of the said case where patta granted by the Tahsildar 27 years back was under challenge on the ground of fraud. Does the lapse of time an excuse to reframe from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right. The answer would be no. 40. On examination of facts of the said case where patta granted by the Tahsildar 27 years back was under challenge on the ground of fraud. On satisfying with the contentions of the parties therein that they have established fraud by pleading and proving, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that challenging the patta certificates even after 27 years is valid. 41. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court, coming to the facts of the present writ petitions, as discussed supra, unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions preferred appeals under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, challenging the Occupancy Right Certificates, obtained by the writ petitioners dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 in the appeals filed on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. Admittedly, they have not filed any application to condone the delay explaining the delay in preferring the appeal. 42. It is the specific contention of the unofficial respondents that the 3 rd respondent is a Quasi Judicial authority; therefore, there is no need of filing separate application to condone the delay. Evem if the said contention of unofficial respondents is accepted, they have to explain the delay in the appeal itself. 43. Perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by unofficial respondents under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 would reveal that, they contended that, after dismissal of the said suit on 31.12.2012, their counsel advised that they prefer an appeal challenging the ORCs, dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991. Therefore, they have submitted applications on 22.03.2013, obtained copy of the aforesaid ORCs and filed appeals on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. 44. Perusal of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2004 would reveal that the unofficial respondents herein/plaintiffs therein specifically pleaded about obtaining Occupancy Rights Certificates in file No.A/613/1991 dated 30.03.1991. They are the legal heirs of original protected tenant i.e., Erragari Sayanna and original pattadar Vijender Reddy. Petitioners herein, defendants in the said suit, filed written statement contending that Occupancy Rights Certificate in file No.A/613/1991 dated 30.03.1991 was issued in favour of defendant No.3 i.e., petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.15971 of 2024, with regard to land admeasuring Ac.4.21 guntas in Sy.No.100. They are the legal heirs of original protected tenant i.e., Erragari Sayanna and original pattadar Vijender Reddy. Petitioners herein, defendants in the said suit, filed written statement contending that Occupancy Rights Certificate in file No.A/613/1991 dated 30.03.1991 was issued in favour of defendant No.3 i.e., petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.15971 of 2024, with regard to land admeasuring Ac.4.21 guntas in Sy.No.100. Her name was mutated in the revenue record. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 also filed written statement in the same lines. They have also specifically contended about the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates vide D.Dis.I.A/5418/78 dated 26.01.1981. Thus, the petitioners/defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the said suit specifically pleaded about the issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991. Thereafter, the trial Court framed issues, conducted trial and then, dismissed the suit on 31.12.2012. Therefore, unofficial respondents cannot contend that after dismissal of the said suit, on the advice of their lawyer, they have obtained copies of the said Occupancy Rights Certificates and filed the aforesaid appeals only on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. The said contention of the unofficial respondents is contrary to Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. They are having knowledge of the aforesaid two Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 on receipt of written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the said suit. Even then, they have waited for dismissal of the said suit on 31.12.2012. Therefore, they cannot contend that they have knowledge of the said Occupancy Rights Certificates only on 28.03.2013 and file the aforesaid appeals on 04.04.2013 and 10.05.2013. The said contention of unofficial respondents is untenable and the same cannot be accepted. 45. As discussed supra, in terms of Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, they have to prefer an appeal within 30 days or they can file an application to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause and by explaining the day to day delay caused in preferring the appeal. They have not preferred appeal within 30 days and they have not even filed an application to condone the delay. They have not even explained the delay in memorandum of grounds of appeal, much less satisfactory reasons. 46. They have not preferred appeal within 30 days and they have not even filed an application to condone the delay. They have not even explained the delay in memorandum of grounds of appeal, much less satisfactory reasons. 46. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the appeals filed by the unofficial respondents under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 before the 3 rd respondent are contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 24(1) of the Inam Abolition Act. 47. The 3 rd respondent in the impugned order referred Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and principle laid down by the Apex Court in “ S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (died) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (died) by LRs and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 ” . It is relevant to note that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with effect of fraud or mistake. In “ Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra)” the Apex Court held that fraud vitiates everything at any stage. 48. In the light of the aforesaid principle, a perusal of the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed by the unofficial respondents before the 3 rd respondent under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 would reveal that they have not pleaded fraud and not proved the same by producing the evidence. Their only contention in the said appeal is that the petitioners obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 without notice to the unofficial respondents. In the entire grounds, the unofficial respondents did not use the word ‘fraud’. Thus, they have not pleaded fraud or they have not proved the same by producing evidence. Even then, 3 rd respondent referred Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also placed reliance on the principle laid down in “ Chengalvaraya Naidu” (supra). Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the record and also principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 49. As discussed supra, the unofficial respondents filed suit, vide O.S.No.34 of 2004, against the petitioners seeking declaration and recovery of possession. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the record and also principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 49. As discussed supra, the unofficial respondents filed suit, vide O.S.No.34 of 2004, against the petitioners seeking declaration and recovery of possession. During pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.12131 of 2024 filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.170 of 2011 in O.S.No.34 of 2004, seeking permission to withdraw the said suit against the petitioners in the said writ petition on the ground that the plaintiffs sold the land admeasuring of Ac.3.00 acres in Sy.No.100 of Nandigama Village to defendant Nos.4 and 5 under unregistered sale deeds on receipt of valid sale consideration and they have also delivered the possession to them on the same day. Ever since from the date of purchase, till today, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are in continues, peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of their purchased landed property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 were obtained Occupancy Rights Certificates with respect of their purchase of the land from the concerned authorities in file No.D.Dis.IA/5418/78 dated 31.03.1991 with the knowledge and acceptance of plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs specially and categorically declares that ever since from the date of alienation of the land, defendant Nos.4 and 5/respondents Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.12131 of 2024 have not sought of right or gain, whatsoever against property holding right defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant 4 and 5 were made as party to the suit on the legal advice only. The plaintiffs are decided to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos.4 and 5 to maintain cordial relation with them. 50. It is opt to note that they have also filed a memo dated 27.06.2011 in the said suit seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit against defendant No.4 and 5. On consideration of the same, learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar allowed I.A.No.170 of 2011 and granted permission to respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.12131 of 2024 to withdraw/abandon the claim against defendant No.4 and 5. 51. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 31.12.2012. Therefore, unofficial respondents cannot turn around and say that the petitioners obtained the aforesaid Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 without putting unofficial respondents on notice. They cannot approbate and reprobate and law does not permit the same as held by the Apex Court in “R.N.Gosain” (supra). 52. 51. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 31.12.2012. Therefore, unofficial respondents cannot turn around and say that the petitioners obtained the aforesaid Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 without putting unofficial respondents on notice. They cannot approbate and reprobate and law does not permit the same as held by the Apex Court in “R.N.Gosain” (supra). 52. As discussed supra, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, unofficial respondents preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2019 and the same pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. At the cost of reputation, it is relevant to note that unofficial respondents filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2004 against the petitioners herein seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The same was dismissed on 31.12.2012. They have preferred the aforesaid appeal and they have to wait for the outcome of the said appeal. 53. It is the specific contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.15971 of 2024 that to avoid litigation from the unofficial respondents, they have also obtained registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.126, 127 of 84, both dated 19.01.84 and 2331 of 1989 dated 07.08.1989. Their names were also recorded in the revenue records, they are in possession of the subject property. 54. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.P.No.15971 of 2024 filed three suits vide O.S.No.55, 56 and 57 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar against the petitioners for cancellation of the aforesaid registered sale deeds and the same were dismissed for default on 14.09.2023. The petitioners filed copies of the said orders. Having filed the said suits, unofficial respondents 6 to 11 should have contested the same. Instead of prosecuting the said suits, they have invited an order of dismissal for default dated 14.09.2023. 55. The aforesaid facts would reveal that unofficial respondents did not prefer the aforesaid appeals challenging the Occupancy Rights Certificates, obtained by the petitioners dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991 within 30 days from the date of the said orders and they have not even filed petition to condone the delay. They have not explained the delay in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. They have preferred the said appeals after a lapse of 22 and 33 years without explaining the delay. They have not explained the delay in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. They have preferred the said appeals after a lapse of 22 and 33 years without explaining the delay. The said aspects were not considered by the 3 rd respondent in the impugned order. 56. The 3 rd respondent cannot refer Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and principle laid down by Apex Court in “ Chengalvaraya Naidu” (supra) on fraud. At the cost of reputation, as discussed supra, the unofficial respondents did not even utter one word of “fraud” in the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed by them under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act,1955 before the 3 rd respondent. Therefore, he cannot decide the said appeals on the ground of fraud. As held by the Apex Court, the unofficial respondents have to plead and prove the fraud. Mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient, they have to plead and prove. In the present case, they have not pleaded and they have not proved the fraud. Therefore, 3 rd respondent cannot pass impugned order on the ground of fraud. 57. Vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023, 3 rd respondent having set aside the impugned Occupancy Rights Certificates, remanded the matter back to 4 th respondent with a direction to conduct discreet enquiry, with reference to the various revenue records, duly verifying as to whether the land is vacant or covered by structures while putting all the interested persons on notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the said direction of 3 rd respondent in the impugned order is contradictory. On the one side, he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct discreet enquiry and on the other hand, he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar to verify revenue record etc., by putting all the interested parties on notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 in case No.F1/5745/2016 is contrary to record and procedure laid down under Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and the principle laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 58. It is relevant to note that to obtain Occupancy Rights Certificates, date of vesting is relevant i.e., 01.11.1973. 58. It is relevant to note that to obtain Occupancy Rights Certificates, date of vesting is relevant i.e., 01.11.1973. As on the said date, the persons who are claiming Occupancy Rights Certificates over the subject property should establish their possession over the subject property. 59. In the present case, the writ petitioners established their possession over the subject property as on the said date. On consideration of the said fact only, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar issued the above ORCS dated 26.01.1981 and 30.03.1991. 60. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, contended that 26.01.1981 being a republic day is a holiday, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubnagar cannot issue ORC on a holiday. 61. Thus, the same would show that writ petitioners obtained the said certificate without serving notice on the unofficial respondents and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Perusal of the ORC Certificate would reveal that there is no date. After the signature, the Revenue Divisional Officer put the said date. 62. The facts of the judgments cited by Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions, are different to the facts of the present case. 63. There is no dispute with regard to the principle laid down by the full Bench in the “Executive Officer, group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahbubnagar Dist.” ( supra), that legal heirs of the original protected tenant are entitled for Occupancy Right Certificates. In the present case, apart from obtaining Occupancy Right Certificates, writ petitioners in W.P.No.15971 of 2024 have also obtained the aforesaid three registered sale deeds from unofficial respondents in the said writ petition. Therefore, the facts of the said case are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 64. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 in file Nos.F1/5731/2016 and F1/5745 of 2016 before the 3 rd respondent in both the writ petitions are liable to be said aside. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners and unofficial respondents to raise all the grounds and contentions which they have raised in the present writ petitions, in A.S.No.7 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.