Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B. Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam, ... vs The State Of A.P.,Revenue,Guntur ... on 17 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010490142017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 694/2017
Between:
B. Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam, & Anr. and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of A P Revenue Guntur Dist 4 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. A S C BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The appellants herein had been granted ryotwari pattas, under the A.P.
(AA) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (herein referred
to as 'the Act') by way of an order, dated 13.02.2007. Thereafter, the
appellants received a notice, dated 14.10.2016, issued by the 4th respondent,
calling upon the appellants to answer the Appeal filed by the 5th respondent.
This notice was challenged by the appellants, by way of W.P.No.6644 of
2017, before the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The primary contention of the appellants
was that Section 7 (2) of the Act stipulates a limitation of 60 days from the
date of order and the Appeal, in which the notice was issued, had been filed
after 9 years and as such, the 4th respondent could not have heard the Appeal
which is beyond limitation. It was further contended that the 4th respondent
does not have power of condonation of delay and accordingly, the Appeal was
not maintainable in any event. The appellants relied upon a judgment of a
Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of
Veerappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor 1.
2. A learned Single Judge after hearing the appellants and the respondent
authorities had held that these issues can very well be raised before the
Appellate Authority and dismissed the Writ Petition leaving it open to the
appellants to approach the 4th respondent and the Appellate Authority.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 27.02.2017, the present Writ
Appeal has been moved by the appellants.
4. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
5. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
facts in the judgment cited by him are similar to the present case. He submits
that a similar issue of limitation was raised before the learned Single Judge
with the contention that the Appeal Proceedings cannot be initiated, after the
2002 (5) ALD 121 (DB)
period of 60 days, mentioned in Section 7 (2) of the Act, have lapsed.
However, the learned Single Judge had held that these issues could be raised
before the Appellate Authority and had relegated the petitioners therein to the
Appellate Authority. The Hon'ble Division Bench, had held that, in view of the
clear bar for entertaining an Appeal under Section 7 (2) of the Act, the learned
Single Judge should not have relegated the petitioners therein to go before
the Appellate Authority and had set aside the entire proceedings.
6. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the
instructions received by the learned Government Pleader, at the stage of
hearing before the learned Single Judge, set out the background in which the
orders, dated 13.02.2007, had been challenged before the Court.
7. The said instructions, which have now been placed before us, states
that the appellants herein had initially been granted ryotwari pattas under the
provisions of the Act. However, these ryotwari pattas were subjected to
further proceedings before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land
Records, Andhra Pradesh, who had initiated suo moto revision in relation to
the grant of ryotwari pattas in the present case as well as 34 other cases in
that area. The Commissioner, after following due procedure had issued
orders, dated 26.11.2004, setting aside the ryotwari pattas and remanded the
matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paravada for conducting a
de novo enquiry and to pass appropriate speaking orders. Thereafter, the
Tahsildar, Paravada, passed orders, dated 13.02.2007, confirming the earlier
ryotwari pattas granted to the appellants. These matters came to light when a
Land Reforms Case bearing L.C.C. No.256/75-AKP had come up for
consideration. The Mandal Revenue Officer, in the aforesaid instructions,
states that the Government Pleader (Appeal) had met the Mandal Revenue
Officer on 23.06.2016 and had opined that an Appeal should be filed against
the order, dated 13.02.2007, under the provisions of the Act as three different
Acts required to be considered namely Inams Abolition Act, A.P., 1956, Land
Reforms Act, 1973 and the Land Acquistion Act, 1894. The Tahsildar further
states that, after examination of the entire issue, an Appeal came to be filed
before the Revenue Divisional Officer-Visakhapatnam / 4th respondent under
Section 7 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, proceedings had been initiated and the
impugned notice, dated 14.10.2016, came to be filed.
8. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of the
above instructions submits that the Appeal was filed within the stipulated 60
days mentioned in Section 7 (2) of the Act.
9. These instructions merely state that the Appeal was filed on the advice
of the learned Government Pleader (Appeals) in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. There is no mention as to the actual date of knowledge of the
orders passed. In these circumstances, the period of 60 days cannot be
calculated from the date on which the learned Government Pleader for
Appeals had given his advice to the Mandal Revenue Officer.
10. In those circumstances, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. reported in 2002 (5) ALD 121 would
apply and it must be held that the Appeal would not be maintainable and that
the learned Single Judge should not have relegated the appellants to go
before the Appellate Authority.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the
learned Single Judge and also setting aside the Appeal before the 4th
respondent (R.D.O.) along with the impugned notice bearing
Rc.No.11026/2016/C, dated 14.10.2016. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
Date:17.09.2024
KPV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO:694 of 2017
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
17.09.2024
KPV
