The Revenue Divisional Officer exceeded jurisdiction in cancelling a ryothwari patta beyond the statutory sixty-day appeal period established under Section 7(2) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.D.Dis.(D2)250/2005, dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.9.50 cents in Survey No.1228 of Peddapolamada Village, Tadipatri Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner has been granted ryothwari patta on 28.11.1980 by 2nd respondent in exercise of powers under Section 7 (1) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an extent of Acs.9.50 cents in Survey No.1228 of Peddapolamada Village, Tadipatri Mandal. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he has been issued pattadar passbook and title deed. That being so, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005 proposing to cancel the ryothwari patta granted in his favour and called upon to submit explanation. The reason assigned for issuance of show-cause notice was that the very same subject land was already granted ryothwari patta in favour of Sree Vighneswara Swamy Temple way back on 27.01.1961 and that without noticing the same, the same has been once again granted ryothwari patta in favour of the petitioner on 28.11.1980, hence proposed to cancel the later patta. The petitioner has challenged the said show-cause notice by filing the Writ Petition No.17170 of 2005 contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued show-cause notice has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, which is in the nature of an appeal under Section 7 (2) of the Act, apparently, beyond the prescribed period of sixty (60) days. This Court having noticed that the petitioner has already submitted explanation and participated in the enquiry in pursuance to the show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005, dismissed the writ petition, however, directing the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. Even before this order came to be passed on 10.08.2005, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Tahsildar to carry out necessary changes in the revenue records by deleting the name of the petitioner and to issue necessary passbooks and title deeds in favour of the Commissioner, Endowments Department reflecting the name of Sree Vighneswara Swamy as ryothwari patta holder. The said order passed by 1st respondent is assailed in the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

4. Perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the very issuance of show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005 and the consequential order dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. The 1st respondent apparently assumed jurisdiction and entertained the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, as appeal under Section 7 (2) of the Act and inasmuch as such appellate powers are to be exercised within a period of sixty (60) days from the grant of ryothwari patta, the 1st respondent ought not have entertained the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, after nearly almost 25 years.

6. He further contend that under Section 7 (2) of the Act, th