IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5383 of 2004 Between: Vadla Prabhakara Chary …Petitioner And: Smt. Vadla Saralamma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5383 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 24.02.2003 in Case File No.F2/1A-18/2001 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar district, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 24(1) of the A.P. Tenancy (Telangana Area) Abolition and Inams Act (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 09.10.2000 in File No.B/5992/98 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, conferring the occupancy rights in respect of lands in an extent of Ac.6.16 guntas in Sy.No.180 of Pedda Tandrapad village and Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No.260 of Narayanapuram village in favour of the first respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar under Section 24(1) of the Act. The said appeal was preferred on 10.09.2001. As there was some delay in filing the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has stated that he was not aware of the orders dated 09.10.2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as he has not received any notice in the said proceedings and that he came to know of the same through Village Administrative Officer of the village and immediately he filed petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad mandal on 20.12.2000 and the Mandal Revenue Officer gave an endorsement on 30.12.2000 stating that he should approach the higher authorities by way of appeal. It is further averred by the petitioner that he filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal on 09.01.2001 and the Revenue Divisional Officer gave an endorsement that he has already passed the orders on 09.10.2000 and therefore he cannot entertain the appeal of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal before the Joint Collector on 06.02.2001. However, the petitioner was advised to file regular appeal under Section 24 of the Act by endorsement dated 03.08.2001 from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred subject appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar on 10.09.2001. 4. In support of his plea, the petitioner has also filed copies of the above endorsements issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not as though the petitioner has slept over his rights for four years. The impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in file No.B/5993/98 on 09.10.2000. The appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector within a year on 10.09.2001. Of course the limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal is 30 days under Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act vests the appellate authority with power to entertain the appeal even beyond the prescribed period, if sufficient cause is shown. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has averred in the affidavit that he is poor and illiterate and he could not engage an Advocate in the initial stages and he preferred an appeal in person and subsequently in view of the endorsement advising him to file a regular appeal, he engaged an Advocate and filed the same. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has also narrated various steps taken by him challenging the impugned orders dated 09.10.2000 of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the endorsement issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and later by the Revenue Divisional Officer advising him to approach the higher authorities. Even when he filed an appeal before the Joint Collector on 06.02.2001, the same was returned on 03.08.2001 advising the petitioner to file regular appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed regular appeal on 10.09.2001. The learned Joint collector in the impugned order observed that if the period of limitation is counted from the order of first endorsement of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the delay is 259 days and if the same is counted from the date of endorsement issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the delay would be 227 days and even counted from the date of 3rd endorsement on 03.08.2001, still there is delay of 43 days in filing the appeal. 6. In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application to condone the delay, it cannot be said that there was any inaction or latches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner did in fact question the said orders by giving report, but the same was returned by the authorities from time to time advising him to file regular appeal under Section 24 of the Act. The lapse on the part of the petitioner if any is in not filing the appeal at the first instance before the competent authority i.e., Joint Collector, but according to the petitioner, it is due to his ignorance and incapability to engage an Advocate on account of poverty. Ultimately, the petitioner was advised to file regular appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act on 03.08.2001 and within five weeks thereafter he filed appeal. It cannot therefore be said that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner in preferring the appeal. 7. Having regard to the fact that the valuable rights in the immoveable property to an extent of nearly ten acres is involved, the learned Joint Collector ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to have the appeal disposed of on merits, in stead of rejecting the same on the ground of limitation, especially, when the record itself shows that there were no latches or deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner, but it was a case where he approached the lower authority in the hierarchy by way of representation, in stead of filing regular appeal before the Joint Collector. The impugned order does not even record any finding that the cause shown for condoning the delay is not sufficient or that the explanation offered is not acceptable, and the appeal was simply dismissed as barred by limitation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a case where the learned Joint Collector failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on him under section 24(1) of the Act in the matter of condoning the delay when the sufficient cause is being shown. The impugned order therefore calls for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this court and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the learned Joint Collector is directed to dispose of the appeal on its merits, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J DATE: 14.06.2011 BSS