THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 1373 of 2009 Dated: 8-9-2010 Between: Telanakula Venkata Narayana Rao and others ….Appellants And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The learned counsel for the respective parties urge that the appeal itself be disposed of as it involves an issue falling in within a narrow compass. The appellants are the writ petitioners who are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5-11-2009 disposing of the writ petition, declining to interdict the 2nd respondent from proceeding with adjudication of the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent, Inam Appeal No. F/1824/2008. The writ petition was filed seeking an order in the nature of a writ of Prohibition to interdict the 2nd respondent from proceeding with adjudication in Inams Appeal No. F/1824/2008, preferred by the 4th respondent, aggrieved by the order of the primary authority, the 3rd respondent dated 17-3-2005 granting ryotwari pattas in favour of the writ petitioners. The 3rd respondent, by the order dated 17-3-2005 ordered issue of ryotwari pattas in an extent of Ac.0-56 cents in Sy.No. 322/7; Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.No. 322/11; Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No. 365/2; and Ac. 2-10 cents in Sy.No. 365/3 in favour of the several persons mentioned therein including the writ petitioners. Initially the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamur granted ryotwari pattas during 1992 and 1993 in respect of the above extents of lands. The Managing Trustee of Sri Madana Venugopala Swamy Temple (the 4th respondent in the writ petition) preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Appeals against the above proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams. The Commissioner of Appeals by the order dated 16-11-1999 remitted the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for conducting a detailed enquiry as per the procedure and take a decision as per law. The 3rd respondent issued notices to the writ petitioners and the Temple. In response, the Managing Trustee of the Temple to have filed his statement claiming that different extents of land in different survey numbers of the village were not related to the institution. The writ petitioners also filed their statements before the 3rd respondent claiming to have purchased the lands through registered sale deeds and requesting grant of ryotwari pattas. The 3rd respondent, by the order dated 17-3-2005, granted ryotwari pattas in favour of the persons enumerated in the order including the writ petitioners. Demonstrably the 4th respondent was a party to the proceedings before the 3rd respondent and was also aware of the order dated 17-03-2005. Section 7(2) of the Act enjoins that any person or institution aggrieved by the grant of a ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 7 may appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of such grant and the Revenue Court may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 enacts that the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (2), and where no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) shall be final. In view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 7(2) and (3) of the Act and in the absence of any statutory provision enabling condonation of delay on reasonable grounds by the statutory appellate authority, the 2nd respondent, has no power, jurisdiction or authority to condone the delay and in an appeal preferred by a person or institution aggrieved by an order passed under Section 7 (1) beyond the period of limitation of sixty days clearly specified in Section 7 (2). The enjoined period of limitation is inflexible and not liable to be condoned for any reasons. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Veerappa v. R.D.O. Chittor[1], considering the very provision, namely, Section 7 (2) of the Act, observed that “the Revvenue Divisional Officer is a creature of statute and whatever power he exercises under the statute should be strictly within the parameters of power granted to him. Since the statute does not confer any power on him to condone the delay, the Revenue Divisional Officer condoning delay of 2555 days would not arise.” The learned Division Bench concurred with an identical view expressed in the judgment of a learned single Judge in R.Balasubramanyam Reddy v. District Collector[2]. In view of the law declared by the learned Division Bench referred to supra, the appeal of the Managing Trustee of Sri Madana Venugopala Swamy Temple, Pamur village preferred in 2008 against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 17-3-2005 is patently beyond the inflexible period of limitation of sixty days. The 2nd respondent cannot therefore entertain or proceed with adjudication of Inams Appeal No. F/1824/2008 on account of the bar of limitation. Since the lack of appellate jurisdiction in the context of the undisputed and explicit bar of limitation is patent, a writ of Prohibition is liable to be issued Ex Debito Justitiae, vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque[3]. In the aforesaid analysis, since on a case of patent lack of jurisdiction being established, a writ of Prohibition would issue Ex Debito Justitiae and as of right, the judgment under appeal enabling the appellate authority to consider all the objections of the writ petitioners including the objection as to patent lack of jurisdiction on account of the appeal being clearly barred by limitation, does not commend acceptance. It also requires to be noticed that in the Counter of the 6th respondent, the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, it is specifically asserted that the 4th respondent had filed the appeal before the 2nd respondent even though he is not appointed as trustee by the Department. The Inams appeal was also filed not by an individual but by the Temple even though the individual had no authority to represent the temple, in view of the assertion of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, referred to above. This appeal is accordingly allowed and a writ shall issue prohibiting the 2nd respondent from adjudicating Inams Appeal No. F/1824/2008 preferred by the 4th respondent against the proceedings bearing Rc.No. C.590/04 of the 3rd respondent dated 17-3-2005. There shall however be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th September, 2010 GRR [1] 2002 (3) LS 47 (DB) [2] 1990 (1) An.WR 95 [3] AIR 1955 SC 233