1. This revision is preferred under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the order of the learned Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District dismissing the petitioner’s appeal being File No.F1/4364 of 2005 dated 20.09.2005, preferred under Section 24 of the Act, as time barred.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

The land admeasuring Ac.0.19 guntas situated in Sy.No.70, Ghanapur village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was an inam land where late Vadla Kistaiah was recorded as original pattadar/inamdar as on 01.11.1973. The petitioners 2 to 4 and the third respondent are the legal representatives of the said Vadla Kistaiah and all of them together said to have sold the schedule property to the first petitioner. It is alleged that the first respondent, grand son of Vadla Kistaiah, approached the primary tribunal under the Act i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District and obtained an occupancy certificate in his name, allegedly, without any enquiry, in File No.J/3461/1999 dated 09.12.1999 and without notice and knowledge of other co-occupants in respect of the said land. It was also alleged that based on the said occupancy certificate, the revenue entries were sought to be changed by showing the name of the first respondent for the year 2003-2004 and that came to the notice of the petitioners on 20.12.2004 when the certified copies of the pahanies were obtained and thereupon, the certified copy of the order of the RDO dated 09.12.1999 was obtained on 04.05.2005 and an appeal under Section 24 of the Act was preferred before the Joint Collector on 18.06.2005.

3. The impugned order shows that the appeal was taken on record and notices to both sides were issued. Later the appeal was heard, primarily, on the question of limitation and the learned Joint Collector dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation in view of Section 24 of the Act. Hence, this revision.

4. Heard Mr. K. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. As would be evident from the narration of facts, as above, the only question that needs consideration is whether the learned Joint Collector, as an appellate authority, was right in thinking that the appeal was barred by limitation. The relevant provision being Section 24(1) of the Act, it is appropriate to extract the same:

24. Appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed authority: -

(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under Section 10 may, within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final.

(2) xxxxx

6. It would be noticed from the above that 30 days period prescribed is not inflexible and it is left to the discretion of the appellate authority to entertain an appeal if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause to extend the time further. This provision is unlike the other provisions generally providing and prescribing limitation for filing of appeals. The entertainment of appeal being clearly at the discretion of the appellate authority subject to satisfaction on extension of time, the strict rigour of Section 5 of the Limitation Act requiring each and every day’s delay to be explained would not be attracted to an appeal under this Act.

7. Both the learned counsel referred to the following decisions of this Court interpreting Section 24 (1) of the Act and it would be profitable to notice them at this juncture.

(a) In A. NAGAIAH v. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT 1998 (2) APLJ 454 it was observed as under:

“…The appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the decision or within such time, as the prescribed authority, viz., the Collector, may for sufficient cause allow. It may be that the question may not be considered as one of l