C.Muniratnam Reddy vs Commissioner Appeals,Office Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4369 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

              WRIT PETITION No.14726 of 2010

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: ".....to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the orders of the 1st respondent passed in CCLA's Proceedings V3/486/2006, dated 31.05.2010 and quash the same and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2) This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioner

obtained a ryotwari patta from Inams Deputy Tahsildar on

18.05.1985. This was challenged in an appeal in 1994 after a

lapse of 9 years before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Questioning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal the writ

petitioner filed W.P.No.12648 of 1994 and the learned single

Judge clearly held that there is no application filed to

condone the delay and even if the authorities have a right to

prefer an appeal they have to do so within the period of

limitation and within the reasonable time. It was held,

therefore, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no power in

condoning the delay and that the stay order issued by him is

incorrect. After this order was passed, learned senior counsel

points out that the RDO passed an order dated 20.08.2006

clearly holding that the appellants failed to justify the delay of

9 years in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he did not interfere

with the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. Against the

same proceedings were initiated before the CCLA on

25.08.2010. In the course of the Order, despite the objection

raised, the orders passed on 20.08.2006 and the Inams

Deputy Tahsildar's order was set aside. Learned senior

counsel points out that this is totally erroneous and incorrect,

as the learned single Judge already held that the delay could

not be condoned without an application and if the appeal is

filed beyond a reasonable period it cannot be entertained. He

submits that the Commissioner committed an error in

passing the impugned order. He relies upon a Division Bench

judgment in W.P.No.1373 of 2009, dated 08.09.2010, and

points out that Section 7 (2) and (3) of the Andhra Pradesh

(Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari)

Act, 1956 were considered and it was pointed out that 60

days is the period from the date of grant of ryotwari patta to

file an appeal. It is also noticed that there is no statutory

provision enabling the condonation of delay. He points out

that an earlier Division Benches of the Court also held that

the RDO is the creature of the statute and his powers should

be exercised in accordance with the statute. It is also pointed

out that in the absence of any power to condone the delay,

the RDO cannot condone the delay. According to the learned

senior counsel this is the settled law on the subject.

4) In reply, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

argues the matter at length. He points out that the impugned

order is a correct order and that it considered the facts and

circumstances clearly. He relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sri

VarahaLaxmiNarasimha Swami VariDevasthanam,

Simhachalm v S.V.Narasimham and Others1and the

judgment of the learned single Judge in Maharaja Alak

Narayana Science and Arts Society (MANSAS),

(2009) 15 SCC 594

Vizianagaram v BuddarajuSarojini and Others2, it is

pointed out that in this case the learned single Judge held

that the question of limitation will not arise if the aggrieved

party had no notice of the order or same was not

communicated. He points out that the learned single Judge

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in paragraph 23 and held that if there is illegality,

revisional jurisdiction must be exercised or else it will lead to

a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, learned Government

Pleader justifies the action.

5) While the argument of the learned Government Pleader

appears to be correct at first blush, the findings of the learned

single Judge in W.P.No.12648 of 1994 are against the State in

this very matter. The issue before the learned single Judge

was about the power of the RDO to condone the delay. In

page 5 of the Order, learned single Judge observed that there

is no mention of any petition filed to condone the delay.

Later, in paragraph 6 it was also held that even assuming

that the authorities have a right to prefer the appeal; they will

have to do so within the limitation time, more so within the

2004 SCC OnLine AP 980

reasonable time. Therefore, it was held that as both the

ingredients are not present the order of the RDO, exercising

the power on his own accord and condone the delay of 9

years, the order of the stay was quashed. An opportunity

was, however, given to the parties to agitate the matter on

merits before the "appropriate Court". After this order was

passed, the RDO passed the order dated 20.08.2006 holding

that the long delay of 9 years cannot be condoned and

rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the revision was filed leading

to the impugned order. One of the points raised in the course

of the hearing before the CCLA is about the reasoning of the

RDO in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and

also the finding by the High Court that the granting of stay by

the RDO and hearing the appeal after nine years is not

correct. It is also mentioned that the order of the High Court

has become final. Learned senior counsel rightly pointed out

that if the state was dissatisfied they had to file a proceeding

before the "appropriate Court" and seek a declaration of the

status of the land. Instead of doing so they approached the

CCLA, who passed the impugned order. It is also apparent

that the impugned order does not really contain reasons that

are warranted under law. It merely produced the

submissions upto paragraph 13 and finally says that the

arguments of the Special Government Pleader has to be

accepted. It is also held that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar did

not give any notice to the Tahsildar before issuing the patta.

It was also apparent that the issue is also raised and argued

that the issue of no notice has been raised earlier, yet this

was also overlooked.

6) While the judgments cited by the learned Government

Pleader are good law, the question is of their applicability to

the present facts. The Division Bench of the Combined High

Court in W.P.No.1373 of 2009 has considered the provisions

of Section 7 of the Act and held clearly that in the absence of

an application to condone the delay and in the absence of a

power to condone the delay the RDO could not condone the

delay. If the alleged fraud was discovered then may be the

limitation would commence from the date of discovery, but

the same is also not the position in the present case.

7) This Court, therefore, holds that in view of the Division

Bench judgment, which is relied upon by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the judgment of

the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12648 of 1994 is directly

against the State / respondents, the writ petitioners are

entitled to the relief as prayed for.

8) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for.

No costs.

9) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:20.09.2023.

Ssv