IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14540 of 2003 and 13012 of 2002 WRIT PETITION No.14540 of 2003 Between: 1 Nuthupalli Pedda Gangaram S/o Late Gangaram R/o Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 Nuthupalli Narsimulu S/o Late Narsaiah R/o Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Sub-Collector, Jagitial, Karimnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Korutla, Karimnagar District. 4 Anumula Ganesh S/o. Venkat Rajam Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5 Annumula Laxmi Bai W/o.Narsaiah Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 6 Buddapuram Shankaraiah S/o Rajaiah Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 7 Buddapuram Raju Bai W/o. Raja Gangaram Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 8 Rudra Boomaiah S/o Venkaiah Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 9 Devanapalli Sathyanarayana S/o Rajaram Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 10 Katakam Bhoomaiah S/o. Mallaiah Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 11 Katakam Raja Bhoomaiah S/o. Madaiah Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 12 Devanapalli Bheema Rajam S/o. Raja Gangaram Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 13 Devanapalli Rajam S/o. Chennulu Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 14 Padala Lingam S/o. Rajam Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 15 Padala Venkata Rajam S/o. Rajam Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 TO 17: MR.P.V.NARAYANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13012 of 2002 Between: Anumalla Ganesh and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Karimnagar and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.V.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3:AGP FOR REVENUE(ASSIGNMENT) Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since these two writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. Both these writ petitions are filed against common order, dated 29.01.2002 passed by the District Collector, Karimnagar. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.14540 of 2003. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 17. The dispute pertains to Acs.7.25 guntas of land in Survey No.197 of Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal (erstwhile Metpally Tahsil). The said land was assigned in favour of the petitioners in 1970. The petitioners executed “razinama patram” under Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 (for short ‘the Rules’) and the same was accepted by respondent No.3 on 05.01.1988. In pursuance of the same, respondent Nos.4 to 15 were assigned a part of the said land by respondent No.3 on 26.02.1988 and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour in 1996. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal purportedly under Section 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) before respondent No.2 against order, dated 26.02.1988 passed by respondent No.3 accepting the “razinama patram” submitted by them. The said appeal was entertained and allowed by respondent No.2 by his order, dated 25.12.2000. The said order was questioned by respondent Nos.4 to 15 and other assignees in the revision before respondent No.1, who in turn, vide her order, dated 29.01.2002 partly allowed the revision in favour of six persons and directed to resume the balance land. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.14540 of 2003 to the extent of allowing the revision in favour of the said six persons. Respondents 4 to 15 filed Writ Petition No.13012 of 2002 against the order of respondent No.1 refusing to confirm the assignments made in their favour. At the outset, it requires to be noted that Writ Petition No.14540 of 2003 is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the six persons, namely, Dyvanapalli Narayana, Dyvanapalli Raju Bai, Dyvanapalli Kushalu, Yenugandula Gangaram, Dyvanpalli Pedda Gangaram and Deekonda Ramai, in whose favour, the revision was allowed by respondent No.1 are not made parties. Curiously, respondents 4 to 15, who were unsuccessful in the revision, were impleaded in Writ Petition No.14540 of 2003 filed by the petitioners. As noted earlier, they are in fact, unsuccessful parties before respondent No.1 as assignments in their favour were not confirmed. In addition to the ground referred to supra, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on merits as well and Writ Petition No.13012 of 2002 deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that Rule 16 of the Rules postulates surrender of land by the original assignees by way of razinama patrams. An order passed accepting such razinama patrams can be assailed by way of an appeal under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Act, 1317 Fasli’). Under Section 160 of the Act, 1317 Fasli, every appeal against the order or decision of an officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner, shall be filed within sixty days. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to file any such appeal under the above-mentioned provision, much less, within the period of limitation referred to above. On the other hand, the petitioners, who kept quiet for more than 12 years, filed an appeal purportedly under Section 4A of the Act which without any disputation can be said to be not maintainable. The provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 would be attracted if the assignee, who was granted assignment as a landless poor person, sells the land in violation of the provisions of the said Act. Assuming that a wrong provision is mentioned in the appeal, I see no justification whatsoever for respondent No.2 to entertain the purported appeal more than 12 years after the “razinama patram” was accepted and assignments were made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not sought for condonation of long delay nor any effort was made to explain the reason for their keeping quiet for such a long time. Respondent No.2 ought not to have entertained the so-called appeal and unsettle the settled rights vested in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 15 on the specious ground that the “razinama patram” did not contain attestations. This Court is unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no delay, as the appeal was filed as soon as they came to know about the acceptance of razinama patram by respondent No.3. The razinama patram pertains to agricultural lands and it is impossible to believe that the petitioners and the private respondents being natives of the same village and the petitioners having filed their razinama patram would not have had knowledge of acceptance of the said razinama patram by respondent No.3 for more than 12 years. Further, when pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in 1988, the petitioners filed appeal in 2000. No explanation was forthcoming from them for the delay of twelve years in filing the purported appeal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are set aside. Writ Petition No.14540 of 2003 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.13012 of 2002 is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th MARCH, 2009. kvni