ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 06.06.2006 in case No. F2/2236/2001 on the file of Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.

2. The case has a long and chequered history. The impugned order dated 06.06.2006 was passed by the Joint Collector dismissing an appeal by the revision petitioners herein questioning the orders dated 27.11.1993 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy. The appeal was dismissed essentially on the ground of limitation.

3. This Court has heard Sri Muddu Vijay and K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Ravi Shankar, Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy and G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners took a lot of pains to take the Court through a number of documents. He points out and argues that the grounds of appeal that are filed are very important and the same are not at all considered by the Joint Collector. He points out that their case is that the revision petitioners did not receive any notice of the order dated 27.11.1993 which is challenged before the Joint Collector. Counsel also points out that fraud was propounded and that N. Jagan Reddy, who appeared for Mohd. Ibrahim was not instructed to appear in the case at all. It is also pointed out that Mohd. Ibrahim was admitted into hospital on 15.10.1993 and he died on 20.10.1993. The counsel also points out that the alleged surrender of land by Mohd. Ibrahim as a protected tenant did not take place as alleged and that somebody has impersonated Mohd. Ibrahim. Learned counsel also submits that Mohd. Ibrahim died on 20.10.1993. Legal representatives of Mohd. Ibrahim were not put on notice of the case. The legal representatives were not even examined.

5. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Mohd. Ibrahim died on 29.10.1993. The order dated 27.11.1993 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is passed against a dead person and is therefore, a nullity. Counsel also submits that in the earlier order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in proceedings in File No. 2255/1989 dated 16.01.1989 the Office noted surrender only for the land ad measuring Ac. 7.00 guntas leaving out Ac. 1.38 cents of land which is currently in issue. The counsel therefore submits that all these issues have not been considered at all by the Joint Collector. Counsel relies upon the following case law to buttress his submissions on the points raised-Movva Anjamma v. Abhineni Anasuya, 1999 (1) ALT 327, Bhagmal v. Kunwar Lal, (2010) 12 SCC 159, K. Naveen Kumar v. M. Suresh Babu, 2009 (5) ALT 187 : 2009 (4) ALD 738, Madan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 2 SCC 720, J. Veeraiah v. Indian Overseas Bank, rep., by its Assistant Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad, 2017 (4) ALT 507 (D.B.), Kamal Krishan Rastogi v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 105, D. Tara Bai v. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Revenue (UL.II) Department, 2013 (1) ALT 257 and Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 12 SCC 353. Written synopsis was also filed by the petitioners in support of their contentions.

6. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the application is filed with an inordinate delay of more than seven (7) years. He also submits that no application has been filed to condone the delay and therefore, the Joint Collector was right in rejecting the application on the ground of limitation. He submits that once the ground of limitation was held to be proved, the other grounds do not survive for consideration. Learned counsel also submits that Mohd. Ibrahim surrendered Ac. 1.38 guntas of land in favour of Kavitha Muthwani on 27.11.1993. He also submits that the legal heirs of Mohd. Ibrahim appeared before the Joint Collector and admitted this fact of surrender. Therefore, it is his contention that once the legal heirs have admitted the surrender of land in favour of Kavitha Muthwani, not