IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10318 of 2002 Between: K. Appalakonda … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Venkatesh Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10318 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 11.04.2002 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he set aside the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of an extent of 11.89 hectares of land in Sy.Nos.143, 146 and 147 of Rayapalli Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner is a non-tribal. On the basis of his father’s claim that he was in possession of the said land over a statutory period of eight years immediately prior to the notiﬁed date i.e., 26.12.1970, he ﬁled an application for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation 2 of 1969 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). Sri Podiam Yerrayya also made a competing claim for a patta in respect of the same land. Respondent No.4 conducted enquiry into the said applications and gave a ﬁnding that the father of the petitioner established his possession for a continuous period of eight years immediately prior to the notiﬁed date, as his claim was supported by the accounts maintained by the muttadar. He relied on the statement of Sri Podiam Yerrayya, who stated that he ﬁled his application for ryotwari patta on being instigated by some people in the locality and that he was not concerned with the land in question and accordingly granted ryotwari patta to the father of the petitioner. The said order has become ﬁnal as the same was not questioned by anybody. More than 25 years, after the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner, the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, respondent No.2, ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 4 read with Section 9 of the Regulation. The said appeal having been allowed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 9 of the Regulation, an appeal shall be ﬁled within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision of the settlement oﬃcer and the appeal, having been ﬁled 25 years after passing of the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner, ought not to have been entertained by respondent No.1. He further submitted that respondent No.4 considered all the aspects before granting ryotwari patta in favour of the father of the petitioner and that respondent No.1 was not justiﬁed in reversing the said order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare strenuously opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since respondent No.2 was not served with a copy of the order passed by respondent No.4, he had no knowledge of the same and that as soon as he came to know about the said order, he ﬁled the appeal. Respondent No.1 in his order framed two points, which are as under: “1. Whether the long delay in ﬁling the appeal can be condoned? 2. Whether the grant of ryotwari patta to the respondent by the Settlement Oﬃcer is in ord e r and whether the patta need to be cancelled?” On the ﬁrst point, respondent No.1 held that though respondent No.4 passed order on 30.08.1976 in favour of the petitioner’s father, the appeal was ﬁled on 12.02.2001, as the said order was not communicated to respondent No.2. He reasoned that in order to correct the situation of non-tribals exploiting the tribals, it became necessary to condone the delay in ﬁling the appeal. Nowhere in the order it is mentioned that respondent No.2 ﬁled an application for condonation of delay. No material is placed by the respondents before this Court to show that such an application was, in fact, ﬁled by respondent No.2. In the absence of an application, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, even assuming that he found justiﬁable reasons for doing so. Therefore, condonation of delay by respondent No.1 in the absence of a formal application constitutes serious error of jurisdiction. With regard to the reasons given for condonation of delay, I ﬁnd myself unable to accept the broad proposition of respondent No.1 that in order to prevent exploitation of tribals, it was necessary to condone delay. The Legislature advisedly prescribed limitation. The main purpose of prescribing limitation is not to vex the individuals with long drawn litigations on the basis of stale claims and appeals. Undoubtedly, while exercising jurisdiction under beneﬁcial legislation like the present resolution, liberal approach is required to be taken, but exercising such a liberal approach shall not cause undue hardship to the opposite party. In the instant case, the petitioner was granted ryotwari patta as far back as the year 1976 and by any standard lapse of 25 years is too long to unsettle the rights came to be conferred on him. I also do not appreciate the reasoning of respondent No.1 in concluding that since the order was not communicated to respondent No.2, he did not ﬁle appeal. Had respondent No.2 been diligent, it would not have been diﬃcult for him to know about passing of the order by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 not being a party to the proceedings, there was no possibility of communicating the order to him. Therefore, the said reasoning is without any rationale. Respondent No.1, in my opinion, committed a grievous error in entertaining the appeal and adjudicating the same on merits after a lapse of 25 years. Though ordinarily the order of respondent No.1 ought to be set aside only on the ﬁnding given above, still I would like to examine the correctness of the ﬁnding given on point No.2. Respondent No.1 found that the Settlement Oﬃcer has not made proper enquiry with reference to the provisions of the Regulation. Though several grounds were raised by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1, he has not dealt with the same. The ﬁnding of respondent No.1 is wholly laconic as he did not give any speciﬁc ﬁnding as to whether the petitioner was in lawful possession or occupation of the land and that the same was void and illegal under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short, ‘the 1959 Regulation’) or any other law for the time being in force. After a lapse of 25 years it is not proper for respondent No.2 to presume that the possession of the petitioner would have been contrary to the 1959 Regulation or any other law for the time being in force. It is not as if respondent No.2 came out with the specific details showing that the petitioner’s possession was contrary to any Regulation that was in force at the relevant time. It is therefore wholly unreasonable for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to set aside the patta granted in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that no speciﬁc ﬁnding was given by the Settlement Oﬃcer that the petitioner’s possession was not contrary to any of the Regulations. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of respondent No.1 is quashed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.12688 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.10.2008 ES