( 1 ) IMPUGNING the order dated 21-2-2004, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, nuzvid, refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the mandal Revenue Officer, dated 31-3-2002 on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, which is an educational institution, was started in 1908. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac. 49-38 cents in Telaprolu village, krishna District, which are inam lands, under different sale deeds in 1916,1936 and 1937. Before and after the purchase of the land, the petitioner states that some persons were cultivating the land purchased by them as tenants. The petitioner states that as the land purchased by them is an inam land, having regard to the provisions of sec. 4 (2) (b) of the A. P. (A. A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short the Act ), they are entitled to be granted ryotwari patta in respect of the land held by them.

( 3 ) THE petitioner states that in 1981, when they demanded rents from the tenants, the tenants refused to pay rents on the ground that they were granted ryotwari patta in respect of the land in question. The petitioner, challenging grant of ryotwari patta to the tenants, filed appeal in Appeal Nos. 1 to 20 of 1990 before respondent No. 2 revenue Divisional Officer, who by order dated 3-4-2000 disposed them of. There against, the tenants filed writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 8835 of 2000, which by order dated 20-7-2000 was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter to respondent No. 2, who it appears, is said to have, while disposing of the appeals held that tenants were not granted ryotwari patta. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed writ petition in W. P. No. 8912 of 2001 before this court seeking direction to the revenue authorities to mutate their name in 10 (1) adangals. This Court by order dated 7-9-2001 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Mandal Revenue officer seeking mutation of the names in the revenue records.

( 4 ) IN pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed application before the Mandal Revenue officer, seeking mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The said application, by order dated 31-3-2002, was dismissed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Thereagainst, it appears that the petitioner instead of filing appeal before the Revenue divisional Officer, had filed the appeal before the Joint Collector, Krishna, and on his refusal to entertain the same, filed appeal before respondent No. 2-Revenue Divisional officer, under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 21-2-2004, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of eight months and seventeen days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the petitioner instead of filing the appeal before the revenue Divisional Officer, had approached, the wrong forum, namely Joint Collector, and filed appeal in time, the Revenue Divisional officer, ought to have entertained the appeal when the Joint Collector refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that he had approached the wrong forum, and more so when the time gap between the date of the impugned order and preferring appeal thereagainst before the wrong forum, is saved by the provisions of Section 14 of the indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the limitation Act ). He, thus prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 revenue Divisional Officer, refusing to entertain the appeal be quashed and set aside, and respondent No. 2 be directed to entertain the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits.

( 7 )