( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. Rangacharyulu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (General) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being taken up together for disposal.

( 3 ) THE main point which arises for an adjudication in all these cases is as to whether the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the a. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ?

( 4 ) THE few facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases are that the petitioners herein filed applications under section 11 (a) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short the Act ) seeking for grant of patta which was initially negatived. Against which, they filed appeals before the first respondent herein with applications under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing thereof. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners was that having regard to the fact that possession is in their favour, they are entitled for grant of patta. It was urged that as they are illiterates and living in a remote village, they were not aware of the notifications, apart from several other reasons given in support to seek condonation of delay. However, the appellate authority namely the first respondent in all these cases, rejected the said applications on the ground that they have no power or jurisdiction to condone the delay inasmuch as the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 400 Revenue, dated 24. 4. 1993 had taken away such power which was previously conferred on them in G. O. Ms. No. 551, dated 19. 5. 1986.

( 5 ) SRI A. Rangacharyulu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that having regard to the special rule made on 17. 10. 1950 under section 67 (2) (c) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) act, 1948 applying the provisions of the limitation Act for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, it cannot be said that the limitation Act has no application. The said rule specifically contemplates that sections 4, 5, 12 (1) and (2), 17 (1) and 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply to all the proceedings under the said Act. Further, it is pointed out that having regard to the change as brought under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and there is no special exclusion of applicability, it cannot be said that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that having regard to the nature of the provisions and especially there being no specific provision in this regard seeking for condonation of delay, the petitioner cannot press into service the provisions of the limitation Act.

( 7 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made on both the sides and on perusal of the material, coming back to the foreground of the question involved, it is seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners made their respective applications on various dates for grant of pattas which were rejected and as against which the appeals were filed before the first respondent with a long delay along with condonation of delay application giving various reasons. However, the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons have not been gone into by the settlement Authority, but rejecting the applications only the ground of that no such power exists.

( 8 ) AS submitted above, the principal question ultimately boils down to whether the rule issued under Section 67 (2) (C) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, dated 17. 10. 1950 has to be given effect to or not ?

( 9 ) THE undisputed statutory coverage on the issue now confronted is that in exercise of powers conferred under section 67 (e) of the Ma