1. In all these three writ petitions the issue for consideration is whether the Revisional Authority erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 4-B of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act, 1977’) on the ground that the said revision was not filed within the period of 90 days from the date of the order of appellate authority and erred in not condoning the delay in filing the revision. In view of the same, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by common order.

2. For convenience the facts in W.P.No.21361 of 2009 are considered. Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of land in Sy.No.128 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. of Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. Petitioner claims to have purchased the same from Smt. Thakur Rama Devi by means of registered sale deed vide document No.2743/99 dated 16.06.1999. Petitioner claims to have verified the revenue records before purchasing the said land and as per the revenue records, vendor of the petitioner purchased the land from Gadapa Dharmapuri in the year 1996 by means of registered sale deed bearing document No.3336/1996 dated 04.06.1996. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, issued certificate dated 02.11.1992 showing the land as patta land standing in the name of Astapuram Mallaiah and others and it is not an assigned land. On verification of the records of Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Karimnagar, Survey No.128 is not shown in the list of assigned. Thus, all the precautions required under law are taken before purchasing the land. The Mandal Revenue Officer, mutated the lands in favour of the petitioner, issued pattadar pass book vide patta No.442 and title deeds. While so, 4th respondent issued notice in Form-I holding that the purchase made is in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1977. The said notice was issued to Astapuram Ashaiah. By proceedings dated 20.01.2007, he cancelled the assignment granted in favour of assignee.

3. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed W.P.No.20405 of 2007. This Court initially granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of along with batch of writ petitions by order dated 06.10.2007 granting permission to the petitioners to file appeals. Accordingly, petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. Without appreciating the true and correct facts and without appreciating the contentions, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 02.02.2008. The copy of the appeal was received by the counsel on record on 28.07.2008. In the mean time, petitioner shifted the residence and, therefore her counsel could not contact the petitioner and there was no information from her counsel with regard to the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Soon after petitioner came to know about passing of orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting her appeal, petitioner filed revision before the District Collector (2nd respondent) on 03.06.2009. Petitioner also filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the revision. The Revisional authority refused to condone delay in filing the revision by order dated 26.06.2009, impugned in the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (T).

5. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that rule of limitation is a procedural requirement and should serve to further the ends of justice. There can be valid reasons for not invoking the statutory remedy, be it original, appellate, or review/revision, within the time stipulated in the relevant statute. Not to entertain such application/ appeal/ revision even if sufficient cause is shown defeats substantive rights vested in a person. It is further contended that if there is no express bar against filing revision after the specified time, as a necessary corollary to power to entertain and consider revision,