ORDER : K. SUJANA, J. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2017 passed in Case No.F1/2314/16 by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at ORR Keesara confirming the order dated 18.12.2014 passed in Case No.L/3101/2004 by the Inam Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella (for short ‘Tribunal’). The petitioner No.1 herein is the appellant before the Joint Collector. 2. The facts of the case are that according to the revenue records, specifically the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the land bearing Sy.No.979 to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, situated at Kukatpally Village and Mandal is an Inam land. Petitioner No.1 claims that Sri Madiga Bhoomaiah was the Inamdar and possessor of the said land, and after his death, as his successor, petitioner No.1 was in possession of the land. However, some unknown persons have entered the land, claiming ownership, obtained Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) for Sy.No.979. The petitioner No.1 disputes this, pointing out discrepancies in the revenue records. The revenue records for the year 1995-96 shows the names of Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, Chinna Narsimulu and Pentaiah in col.13 as occupants. As per the pahani for the year 2002-03 the names of Chinna Narsimulu, Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, Boddu Pentaiah and A.Dharma Rao are recorded and occupants in col.13 as is mentioned in Sy.No.978. In subsequent pahanies the names of Chinna Narsimulu and others are recorded in pursuance of the MRO order dated 17.3.2004 in File No.B/14021/2004. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the order from the Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.04.2016, and filed an appeal in a timely manner. When the petitioner requested copies of pahanies from 1955 onwards, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) issued a Memo stating that records from 1955 to 1995 were damaged in a fire accident. It is further alleged that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not verify the Khasra Pahani, despite its availability, and instead relied on manipulated pahanies for the year 1995-96, 2002-03 to grant ORC to respondents 1 to 5, that no notice was served before passing the impugned order and that the respondents were never in possession of the land. 3. The respondent No.6 therein filed counter stating that the petitioner is neither a legal representative of the Inamdar nor connected to his family. Instead, the petitioner No.1 has manipulated his name and father's name to suit his case, contrary to records. 3. The respondent No.6 therein filed counter stating that the petitioner is neither a legal representative of the Inamdar nor connected to his family. Instead, the petitioner No.1 has manipulated his name and father's name to suit his case, contrary to records. According to the death certificate filed by the petitioner No.1, his name is shown as Kommu Yadaiah S/o.Bhoomaiah, with no mention of "Madiga" before their names. It is further stated that other individuals, namely Chinna Narsimha, Darga Pochaiah, Chinna Pentaiah, and Chinna Narasimha, cultivated lands in Sy.Nos.978 and 979 of Kukatpally Village and obtained Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) as family members of the Inamdars. The petitioner No.1 has not provided any documents showing cultivation of land, which has remained uncultivated and non-agricultural for several years. The respondent No.6 claims that the petitioner’s General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder is behind the case, aiming to extract money through litigation threats. Given the petitioner No.1 lack of connection to the Inamdar’s family and failed to question issuance of ORC and the appeal appears to be based on false allegations, filed 11 years after the issuance of ORCs, and is thus barred by limitation. The respondent No.6 relied on the judgments in Mir Alamdar Ali V Joint Collector-I, Rangareddy District and Others , [ 2014 (1) ALD 177 ] , Gali Suvarna and others V Vadla Raghunandan and others, 2011 (4) ALD 763 and Barla Prabhakar Reddy V Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and others , [ (2009) 2 ALD 681 ] emphasizing that huge and inordinate delay in condoning applications shouldn't be entertained. 4. The petitioner No.1 filed rejoinder to the counter alleging that the proceedings obtained by the respondents are illegal and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act , 1955. The respondents are not connected to the land and were neither in possession on the date of vesting nor in possession of the subject land from the date of abolition i.e., on 20.07.1955. According to the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Madiga Bhoomaiah was the Inamdar, and his name was incorporated in the revenue records. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the successor of the said Inamdar and has filed a certified copy of the Khasra Pahani to establish the same. The petitioner No.1 claimed that pahanies for the year 1954-55 or 1972-73 should be considered to establish possession over Inam lands. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the successor of the said Inamdar and has filed a certified copy of the Khasra Pahani to establish the same. The petitioner No.1 claimed that pahanies for the year 1954-55 or 1972-73 should be considered to establish possession over Inam lands. The respondents objected to the petitioner No.1's surname, Kommu, being different from the Inamdar's, for which, the petitioner No.1 explained that in earlier days, people's names often included their caste, and they have produced relevant documents, including a family members certificate, to establish their rights over the land. 5. Regarding limitation, the petitioner No.1 relied on Section 24, stating that no limitation applies since the orders were issued behind his back, and he was not party to the proceedings. The petitioner No.1 relied on the judgments in Syed Hussain Sab (died) per L.Rs V Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and others , [ (2009) 3 ALT 316 ] , Khurshid Shapur Cenai and another V Government of A.P. and others , [ (2005) 1 ALT 678 ] , and G.Venkat Ram Reddy and others V Najeebunnisa and others, (2005) 3 ALT 313 to support his case. Petitioner No.1 further alleged that the RDO’s presumption about the respondents' possession on the date of vesting is incorrect, especially since the revenue records of Kukatpalli village were lost in a fire accident. Therefore, the ORC granted to the respondents is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.9, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.7, Sri V.Pattabhi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.13, 17 and 18, Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.19. 7. During pendency of this revision petition, petitioner No.1 died and his sole legal representative was brought on record as petitioner No.2. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the RDO and the Joint Collector failed to notice several crucial aspects as the RDO passed the impugned order based on manipulated pahanies for the year 1995-96, 2002 and 2003, which is a grave mistake; that the respondents were never in possession of the schedule property at any point of time. The ORC was obtained behind the back of revision petitioners without issuing notice or serving them before passing the impugned order. The revision petitioners claim to be the rightful owner and successor in interest of original Inamdar-late Madiga Bhoomaiah. With regard to limitation, the Joint Collector held that the appeal under Section 24 of the Act was filed beyond the period of limitation. However, the revision petitioners contend that the Joint Collector has power to entertain the appeal even if filed beyond the limitation period especially since the ORC was obtained through fraud is illegal and not valid. The respondents’ subsequent sale of the property to third parties is also invalid, as they had no right to alienate the property. Hence, prayed to allow this civil revision petition by setting aside the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner No.1 herein has no locus standii to agitate the claim as he is not the legal heir of Inamdar, no document is filed to prove that he is the successor of Madiga Bhoomaiah and this petition is filed with a fraudulent intention to extract money under threat of litigation. If really the petitioner No.1 is the legal heir of Inamdar, he would have taken steps to question the ORC granted to the respondent Nos.1 to 5, thereby subsequently properties were purchased by the subsequent purchasers and there are many developments in the subject property. As such, at belated stage, petitioners cannot agitate for their rights without any locus standii. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision petition. 10. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record, originally the RDO in his order observed that for the year 1954-55 pahani was not available on record and 1973 documents which is the crucial date as per the judgment of the Apex Court is also not available and those documents are also damaged in fire accident in the office and basing on the 1995-96 to 2004-05 documents ORC was granted to the respondents whereas 1954-55, pahani was obtained by the petitioners from the same office. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider the documents on record which are available therein and there is no document filed by the respondents herein to show that they are in possession as on 01.11.1973 which is the crucial date of vesting of right under the Act and basing on the pahani for the year 1995-96, 2002-03, the respondents herein are granted ORC. Further in the application filed by respondents herein claiming ORC there is no mention of Inamdar’s name which irregularity is not considered by the RDO. As the documents of the year 1954-55 are available, where the respondents are claiming property as the legal heirs of Inamdar has to be decided by the RDO after verifying the relevant record. Whether the petitioners are having succession certificate, whether the petitioner No.1 is the successor of Madiga Bhoomaiah has to be decided by the RDO basing on the documents. As such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 27.09.2017 passed in Case No.F1/2314/16 by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at ORR Keesara and the matter is remanded to the RDO, Chevella to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both parties. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.