jurisdictional error has to be looked into whether on the crucial date i.e., on 01.11.1973 all the lands vest with the Government and subsequently, the Government can issue grant (re-grant) to the occupants. The father of the petitioner was not granted re-grant under Section 3 of the Act by the Government and thus, the Government is the owner. Moreover, the second respondent has not recognized the rights of Mudavath Laxman (father of the petitioner). Thus, the sale deeds said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner are null and void as the vendor had no transferring title upon the lands to transfer the same to the vendees i.e., the unofficial respondents herein, and hence the unofficial respondents cannot claim better title. It was further argued that respondents 3 to 8 obtained ORC on the strength of bogus and fabricated documents. In support of his arguments on the issue of grant of ORC, he relied on the judgments in Lokraj V. Kishan Lal1 , Syed Yakoob V. K.S.Radhakrishnan2 , N.Padmamma V. S.Rama Krishna Reddy3 and Chama Narasimha Reddy V. Joint Collector, Ranga Redy District, Hyderabad4 . He also relied on the judgment in M/s.Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited V. District Board, Bhojpur5 on the ground of condonation of delay and laches and Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai6 on the ground of dispensing alternative remedy.
