Judgment

L.M. SHARMA, J.

(1) BOTH these appeals have been filed by persons in whose favour the State government made allotment of agricultural lands on the assumption that they were surplus lands within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondents claim that they have been in possession of the lands as tenants for a long period, and the original land owners had no right to surrender the lands under the provisions of the Act They assert that they had no information of the steps taken by the aforesaid alleged land owners and the orders passed thereon, and that they (tenant-respondents) continued in possession throughout. The lands, therefore, could not have been treated as surplus and the State government had no authority to settle the same with the allottee-appellants.

(2) THE allottee-appellants have denied the claim of the respondents and have pleaded that after the Act came into operation, the land owners made a declaration under S. 8 of the Act in April 1975 on the basis of which excess area was determined under S. 9 of the Act on 27/11/1975, following which the disputed area was surrendered by the land owners in February 1976. The common case of the allottee-appellants and the State government is that possession was taken by the government in April 1976 and settlements in favour of a large number of allottee-appellants were made on 15/08/1976 in pursuance of which pattas were granted. However, the allottee appellants were actually put in possession of the different plots later, on 22/04/1977. In 1979 the contesting respondents, claiming tenancy rights attempted trespass, which led to the drawing of a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the order dated 12/10/1979 the Magistrate declared the possession of the allottee-appellants.

(3) THE tenant-respondents filed appeals under S. 20 of the Act before the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal against the order dated 27/11/1975 and also challenged before the High court the judgment in the proceedings under S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The Appellate tribunal, constituted under S. 20, accepted the case of the tenant respondents and allowed the appeals. The allottee-appellants challenged the decision before the High court under S. 21 of the Act. The High court dismissed the claim of the allottee-appellants and confirmed the judgment of the Appellate tribunal. So far the application against the order of the Magistrate in S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings was concerned, the High court held that the same did not survive in view of the judgment of the Appellate tribunal. Thus, in view of the findings of the Appellate tribunal in favour of the tenant-respondents and the operative part of the judgment of the High court, full relief was made available to the tenant-respondents. The allottee-appellants have now challenged the decision of the High court by the present appeals.

(4) THE learned counsel for the allottee-appellants as also the advocate for the State government which supports the appellants, have contended that having regard to the fact that the tenant-respondents belatedly filed appeal under S. 20 of the Act before it, the Appellate tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. The argument is that a period of 30 days has been fixed for such appeals without any power to the Appellate tribunal to condone the delay. The tenant respondents, therefore, had no right to prefer their appeals after several years of the impugned order dated 27/11/1975.

(5) ADMITTEDLY no notice was issued to the tenant-respondents of the declaration made by the land owners in April 1975 or of the order dated 27/11/1975 determining the excess area under S. 9. According to their case the tenant-respondents had no information of the proceedings until 1979 when a claim was made for the first time on behalf of the appellants. They, ther