ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the orders of the 1st respondent passed in CCLA’s Proceedings V3/486/2006, dated 31.05.2010 and quash the same and pass such other or further orders as the Hon’ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2) This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioner obtained a ryotwari patta from Inams Deputy Tahsildar on 18.05.1985. This was challenged in an appeal in 1994 after a lapse of 9 years before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Questioning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.12648 of 1994 and the learned single Judge clearly held that there is no application filed to condone the delay and even if the authorities have a right to prefer an appeal they have to do so within the period of limitation and within the reasonable time. It was held, therefore, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no power in condoning the delay and that the stay order issued by him is incorrect. After this order was passed, learned senior counsel points out that the RDO passed an order dated 20.08.2006 clearly holding that the appellants failed to justify the delay of 9 years in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he did not interfere with the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar. Against the same proceedings were initiated before the CCLA on 25.08.2010. In the course of the Order, despite the objection raised, the orders passed on 20.08.2006 and the Inams Deputy Tahsildar’s order was set aside. Learned senior counsel points out that this is totally erroneous and incorrect, as the learned single Judge already held that the delay could not be condoned without an application and if the appeal is filed beyond a reasonable period it cannot be entertained. He submits that the Commissioner committed an error in passing the impugned order. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.1373 of 2009, dated 08.09.2010, and points out that Section 7 (2) and (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari)

Act, 1956 were considered and it was pointed out that 60 days is the period from the date of grant of ryotwari patta to file an appeal. It is also noticed that there is no statutory provision enabling the condonation of delay. He points out that an earlier Division Benches of the Court also held that the RDO is the creature of the statute and his powers should be exercised in accordance with the statute. It is also pointed out that in the absence of any power to condone the delay, the RDO cannot condone the delay. According to the learned senior counsel this is the settled law on the subject.

4) In reply, learned Government Pleader for Revenue argues the matter at length. He points out that the impugned order is a correct order and that it considered the facts and circumstances clearly. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sri VarahaLaxmiNarasimha Swami VariDevasthanam, Simhachalm v S.V.Narasimham and Others1and the judgment of the learned single Judge in Maharaja Alak Narayana Science and Arts Society (MANSAS),

1(2009) 15 SCC 594

Vizianagaram v BuddarajuSarojini and Others2, it is pointed out that in this case the learned single Judge held that the question of limitation will not arise if the aggrieved party had no notice of the order or same was not communicated. He points out that the learned single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 23 and held that if there is illegality, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised or else it will lead to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, learned Government Pleader justifies the action.