( 1 ) THE petitioner states that he was a landless poor person and was eligible for assignment of land. In the year 1979 he submitted an application to the then tahsildar for assignment of a suitable land. He further states that after conducting a detailed enquiry in the village and after following the procedure prescribed by law, through proceedings DAR Dis. No. 202/89 (K), dated 6-11-1979, land to an extent of 1. 39 acres in Survey No. 276-2 was assigned to him. He took the possession and is enjoying the possession of the land. He submits that, there is a private tank situated adjacent to his land in Survey No. 275 which has been recognised by the Collector as such by proceedings dated 8-10-1937. The 5th respondent has some wet land in Survey no. 386. In order to get his land irrigated the 5th respondent encroached upon the land to an extent of 50 cents belonging to the petitioner and only 89 cents were left for cultivation to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the authorities. He further states that his representations were pending before the authorities when the 5th respondent moved an application to the 3rd respondent taking objection to the assignment of land to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent referred the matter to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after conducting personal inspection of the land issued a notice to respondent No. 5 proposing to conduct an enquiry on 7th August, 1989. Thereafter the first respondent submitted his report to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent without deciding the matter on merits disposed of the matter holding that an appeal should have been preferred before the 2nd respondent instead of straightaway approaching him. He passed this order on 22-10-1990 in which he states:"however, the appellant could have gone an appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur or Mandal Revenue officer straight before approaching this court. Appeal is not all required. Hence, it is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file this petition before an appropriate authority. All interim orders issued already are withdrawn. "

( 2 ) IT appears that, thereafter an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional officer who is second respondent. This appeal was entertained obviously after the order passed by 3rd respondent on 22-10-1990 as the appellate authority s order does not disclose the date on which the appeal was presented. In this appeal, the respondent who is present petitioner specifically raised plea of limitation and submitted that the appeal was not at all maintainable as it was hit by limitation. The patta had been granted to the petitioner on 6-11-1979 and the first application made by the 5th respondent showing grievance against the patta was 20-7-1989 and formal appeal was filed some time after 22-10-1990. So, there was delay of more than a decade. Although the appellate authority in its order states that, "the respondent has filed counter through advocate stating that the appeal is time barred and that the assignment cannot be questioned after a long time", yet he has not dealt with this objection in his order. It is also disclosed from this appeal that respondent No. 5 had only challenged the patta to the extent of 0. 50 cents and he wanted cancellation of patta to the extent of 0. 50 cents of land. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, without giving any finding as regards the limitation, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the following order:"in view of the abovementioned circumstances, the assignment made to the respondent should be cancelled and re-assignment has to be made in favour of the respondent to an extent of 1. 09 acres only by sub-dividing an extent of 0. 30 cents covered by kunta bund and the water course of surplus water. The mandal Revenue Officer is directed to send proposals for cancellation of assignment made in DAR Dis. No. 20/ 89 (K) dated 6-11-1979 to the Collector as the Coll