(B Prakash Rao, J)

Heard the learned Advocate General on behalf of the writ appellants and petitioners in the applications and Mr.M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents 1 to 5, who were the petitioners in the Writ. The main appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, on 30.7.2009 at the instance of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District ( an Appellate Authority under A.P. (TA) Inams Abolition Act) 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) Hyderabad, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Inams Tribunal) under the said Act, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy district and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy, aggrieved against the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W P No.11058 of 2001 dated 16th September, 2008, along with the appeal, an application in WAMP No. 2011 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 242 days in filing the appeal is filed.

Briefly, the facts in the backdrop which gave raise to the main proceedings are, that in the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein (herein after referred as the writ petitioner), who were claiming Occupancy Rights as Kabiz-e-Kadim as occupant under Section 5 of the Said Act assailed the correctness of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, (Inams Tribunal), Chevella, Ranga Reddy district dated 25.10.1997, and as confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy/Appellate Authority, vide proceedings No.F1/1402/98 dated 9.4.2001. Shorn of the details on merits, it would suffice to note that the claim of the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.194/8, admeasuring to Ac.5.10 gts, of Begumpet was rejected by both the authorities on the ground that the land is not an agricultural since it is a poultry. This was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the provisions, in section 2 (1) (a) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 defining ‘agriculture’ as including ‘poultry farming and stock breeding’ and respondents/writ petitioners admittedly being in possession under a lease for the purpose of running such poultry farm on the date of vesting, allowed the writ petition holding that the respondents come well within the parameters, and therefore entitled to the Occupancy Rights certificate for the said land.

Assailing the said orders, this appeal has been filed by the aforesaid three authorities viz., Joint Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, disputing amongst other grounds that ‘whether the poultry farm would constitute as agriculture or not and asserting that it is a non-agricultural land, and therefore granting Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 5 of the Act, does not arise. These two authorities are arrayed as appellants 1 and 2 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district is arrayed as the appellant no.3 in the present appeal. Initially, when the matter has come up in the said application filed by the appellants in WAMP Nos. 2011 and 2240 of 2009, one seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and along with another to bring the Legal Representatives of respondent no.2, who died later, on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, which was sworn to by Mr.B.V.Ratna Kumar/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division himself, apart from referring to the merits, asserted that the respondents/writ petitioners are not entitled to such Occupancy Rights Certificate supporting the orders passed initially on 25.10.1997 by itself as a tribunal and the same being confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, the appellant no.1. As regards reasons, the only relevant paragraph is para 7 of the affidavit, which for convenience sake is extracted below, which reads as follows;

“Para.7. I submit th