The court affirmed that the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act, allowing claims to be considered on merits despite procedural delays, emphasizing judicial discretion and justice.

ORDER :

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"…….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings, Endorsement made in L.Dis.F2/1937/2022, dated 29.09.2022 on the file of the Court of the Joint Collector-Cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, void, malafide, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 violative of Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India, violative of principle of natural justice, and to quash the same and consequently the 2nd respondent be directed to entertain the claim Application of the petitioners made under Sec.11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and to consider and dispose of the same, by granting Ryotwari patta, in accordance with law and pass such other orders…….”

2. Shorn of all unnecessary facts, the petitioners herein made a Claim Petition under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act 1948’) for grant of ryotwari patta before the 2 nd respondent-Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupathi. The said Claim Petition was rejected by the 2^nd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2022, on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.400 Revenue (J) Department, dated 24.04.1993, the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer has no power to entertain fresh and delayed Claim Petitions under Section 11(a) of the Act 1948 preferred after 24.04.1993 as the powers are specially excluded.

3. The said proceedings dated 29.09.2022 are assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings under the Act 1948 and the ancestors of the petitioners are illiterates, residents of remote village and not aware of the notifications and are in bona fide impression that taking into consideration of the longstanding possession, recognizing the pre-existing rights over the lands, patta will be granted by the authorities and the petitioners are not aware of filing of the application under of the Limitation Act and under Section 67(2)(c) of the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, applying the provisions of the Limitation Act for the purpose of proceedings under the Act and in view of the same, the 2^nd respondent ought to have entertained the Claim Petition by holding that the Limitation Act has application, as the said rule specifically contemplates that Sections 4 , 5, 12(1)&(2), 17(1) and 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to the proceedings of the Act. Further, it is asserted that there is no proviso in the Act of 1948 that excludes the application of or other provisions of the Limitation Act in any forum. Therefore, the primary authority erred in not entertaining the Claim Petition, and the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the erstwhile High Court in Gandham Vajramma and others Vs. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad and others reported in 2005(5) ALT 85 (S.B.), wherein a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court held that of the Limitat