Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
B Indiramma, W/O.Late B.Rajareddy -Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department - Respondent
Writ Petition No.18460 of 2023
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Rights
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA AREA ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT: S.11(a)
LIMITATION ACT: S.12, S.17, S.18, S.4, S.5
MADRAS ESTATES ABOLITION AND CONVERSTION INTO RYOTWORY ACT: S.67(2)(c)
MADRAS SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT: S.13
Headnote
(B) Limitation - Applicability of Limitation Act provisions to proceedings under the Act 1948 established - Court affirmed the necessity of examining claims on merits despite procedural delays - Emphasis on judicial discretion and natural justice principles allowed for relief against procedural strictures. (Paras 11, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a Claim Petition for ryotwari patta, rejected by 2nd respondent citing lack of authority to entertain delayed claims post 24.04.1993; petitioners argued entitlement under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to ignorance about filing requirements and longstanding possession of the land.
Findings of Court:
The claim petition was allowed to be represented before the 2nd respondent, emphasizing that the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer must consider the application on its merits without prejudice.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the Claim Petition based on delay and lack of an application for condonation of delay was justified and if it violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 5 regarding condonation of delay apply, reiterating judicial discretion in allowing claims based on justifiable grounds, particularly for illiterate and rural applicants.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
For the Petitioner: S V Muni Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Revenue, V Sudhakar Reddy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition allowed without costs. (Para 1 , 15) |
| 2. claim petition rejected for being belated. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. violation of natural justice in rejection. (Para 4) |
| 4. counterarguments against petitioners' claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. justification of delay rejection requires application under limitation act. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. court's discretion to condone delay without formal application. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. remanding case back to authorities for reconsideration. (Para 14) |
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 2nd 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 2nd 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
