THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14205 of 2011 ORDER: The order, under challenge in this Writ petition, is the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.04.2011 whereby a representation by the Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi (MRPS), Mahaboobnagar, alleging that the lands inherited by the fifth respondent were illegally grabbed by others in collusion with the officials, was allowed, the Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) granted in favour the petitioners’ in the year 1999 was set aside, and the matter remanded back to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh for issuance of ORC in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased inamdar. Sri I.Koti Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the impugned order was passed on the basis of a representation given by an organization which cannot be held to be a “person aggrieved” under Section 24(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’); the impugned order was passed after a long lapse of nearly 12 years though the limitation prescribed, under Section 24(1) of the Act, was 30 days; and the impugned order was passed behind the petitioners’ back, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Sri M.Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent, would contend that the very grant of ORC is illegal since it was issued behind the back of the fifth respondent; the fifth respondent is the legal heir of the original inamdar; the provisions of the Limitation Act have no application to proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Act; since the fifth respondent had also signed on the representation, submitted by the MRPS, it must be construed that it is an appeal preferred by him under Section 24(1) of the Act; and, therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent does not necessitate interference. In so far as the petitioners’ contention of the impugned order being passed behind their back is concerned, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would show that the petitioners were put on notice on 30.12.2010 by the second respondent calling upon them to appear before him on 07.01.2011; as there was a calamity in the petitioners’ family, time was sought, but the second respondent had refused to grant time; the second respondent, while granting an order of stay, had posted the matter to 05.03.2011; the matter was heard finally on 05.03.2011 and was reserved for orders; and, eventually, orders were pronounced on 16.04.2011. Accepting the averments, in the affidavit, as they are, it is not even the petitioners’ case that they were denied an opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2011 when the appeal itself was taken up for hearing; their claim to have been denied an opportunity of being heard is on 07.01.2011 when a stay order was passed on the representation submitted by MRPS, and not when the appeal was finally heard on 05.03.2011. The contention that the petitioners were denied an opportunity of being heard must, therefore, fail. I find substantial force in the submission of Sri I.Koti Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the second respondent could not have initiated proceedings, under Section 24(1) of the Act, on the representation submitted by MRPS even if the said proceedings also bear the signature of the fifth respondent. Section 24(1) of the Act enables an appeal to be preferred to the prescribed authority by a person aggrieved by the decision of the primary authority. The MRPS, which submitted the representation, cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, and it is the fifth respondent as the legal heir of the deceased inamdar (if this submission is true), who as a person aggrieved alone is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act. While the impugned order would require to be set aside on this short ground, it is, however, necessary also to deal with the question of limitation. Since the petitioners’ grievance is that the ORC was cancelled after a long lapse of 13 years, Sri M.Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent, would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in S.Mallesh v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] wherein this Court held that a discretion is conferred on the appellate authority to consider an appeal filed beyond 30 days for sufficient cause being shown; even if there is a delay, the appellate authority is not barred from examining whether the appeal as filed is belated or not; the appellate authority, under Section 24(1) of the Act, is a quasi-judicial tribunal not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Civil Procedure Code; it may follow a reasonable procedure so long as such procedure is fair and conduces speed and efficiency in the discharge of the quasi-judicial appellate functions; and the technical procedure of filing an application for condonation of delay and, on such application being filed, recording reasons to allow such application is not mandated by the scheme of the Act nor on general principles applicable to the procedural requirements of a quasi- judicial tribunal. In the case on hand, no such exercise has been undertaken by the appellate authority. It is for the appellate authority to satisfy himself that the appeal should be entertained under Section 24(1) of the Act on grounds he considers reasonable provided, of course, the appellant is able to satisfy the appellate authority regarding his inability to file an appeal within the time stipulated under Section 24(1) of the Act. On the sole ground that the MRPS, which filed the representation, cannot be said to be a “person aggrieved”, the impugned order dated 16.04.2011 is required to be, and is accordingly, quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the fifth respondent, who claims to be the legal heir of the deceased inamdar, from preferring an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Act more so in the light of his submission that the ORC was issued behind his back, and he was unaware of such an ORC being granted till recently. I have no reason to doubt that, in case, such an appeal is preferred by the fifth respondent, the second respondent shall act thereupon, in accordance with law, with all expedition. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:08.09.2011 usd [1] 2010(2) ALT 712