IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, C.R.P.No.6347 OF 2005 Between: M.Jaggaiah(died) per LRs M.Srinivas and others …Petitioners A n d The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6347 of 2005 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2005 in F2/4596/2005, on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed an application dated 31.05.2002 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad under Section 40 of the Act for issuance of a certificate of succession in respect of Ac.10-00 of land in Sy.No.3 of Ghansmiyaguda village on the ground that they are the legal heirs of the protected tenant. After issuing general notification on 07.06.2002 and having received no objection in response thereto, the Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 25.05.2004, issued the certificate under Section 40 of the Act in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. The said appeal was filed with a delay of one year two months twenty three days. The learned Joint Collector, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application at the admission stage on the ground of limitation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity was given to the petitioner herein, the appellant, to explain the delay by the Joint Collector before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the impugned order shows that the learned Joint Collector has endorsed the view taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The impugned order of the Joint Collector refers to the general notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the verification of the PT register by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, based on which certificate under Section 40 of the Act came to be issued. The impugned order of the learned Joint Collector does not, however, show that the matter was dealt with on its merits and, on the other hand, it shows that the appeal was dismissed at admission stage of limitation. As valuable rights of the parties in immoveable property of an extent of about Ac.10-00 are involved, the learned Joint Collector ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner herein to explain the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Section 93 of the Act while prescribing the period of limitation as 60 days for filing the appeal from the date of the order states that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court can condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. 6. In B.YADAGIRI V. CHENCHU YELLAIAH & OTHERS[1] this Court held that the date for the purposes of computation is the date of the knowledge and not the date of order and the period consumed for obtaining copy of the decree or order appealed from, will have to be excluded. 7. The learned Joint Collector, therefore, failed to exercise jurisdiction in the matter of condonation of delay, as the impugned order does not disclose any reasons for not condoning the delay. 8. According to the petitioner, who is a third party to the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer, came to know of issuance of the said certificate just prior to filing of the appeal. According to him, he purchased various extents within the subject land under a registered sale deed from different owners in 1995 and 1997, the details of which are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Joint Collector seeking suspension of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. He would contend that the Mandal Revenue Officer has granted certificate in favour of the respondents without any enquiry and the respondents have nothing to do with the subject land. 9. In a decision in G.VENU GOPAL REDDY V. P.ANANTHA REDDY AND OTHERS[2], this Court held that review application filed by a third party under Section 91 of the Act within time from the date of his knowledge cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 10. That the appeal was filed with a delay is admitted. The learned Joint Collector ought to have considered the matter of condonation of delay on its merits and recorded a finding as to whether the delay is satisfactorily explained or not. 11. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order, which is bereft of any reasons, is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides regarding the condonation of delay. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 1973 (2) APLJ 105 [2] 2002(1) An.WR 59 (A.P)