HE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.M.P.No. 1696 of 2008 AND WRIT APPEAL No. 1477 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) W.A.M.P.No. 1696 of 2008 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the L.R. Petition is ordered. W.A.No. 1477 of 2001 The present Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No.15166 of 2001, dated 25.7.2001 at the admission stage. The appellant herein has filed the Writ Petition before the learned Single judge seeking to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the Commissioner of Appeals in his reference No. V3/645/98, dated 26.2.2001 from the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition at the admission stage. For the purpose of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the learned Single Judge are referred to hereinafter in this judgment. The claim of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition was that the petitioner has purchased lands measuring 0-20 cents in Sy.No.383/4 and 0.02 cents in Sy.No.383/10 of Tiruchanoor village, Tirupati Rural Mandal along with other lands under a registered sale deed dated 23.2.1970 from one Smt. K. Seshamma and Smt. V. Padmavathamma. The Inamdar K. Varadacharyulu filed a suit O.S.No. 41 of 1955 on the file of District Munsif, Tirupati for redemption of mortgage debt against Yagannagari Kamalamma and others. The learned District Munsif, Tirupathi passed a final decree on 20.1.1956 in favour of Inamdar K. Varadacharyulu for realizing the amounts due thereunder. K. Varadacharyulu executed the decree and he purchased the schedule property with the permission of the Court and obtained delivery of possession through Court in E.P.No. 246 of 1956 and delivery receipt was issued on 20.11.1957 in E.A.No.731 of 1957. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said lands from the legal heirs of said Varadacharyulu viz. Seshamma and Padmavathamma by a registered sale deed dated 23.2.1970. That the total extent of the land purchased by the petitioner under the registered sale deed was Ac.2-13 cents and on survey there was an excess extent of land of 0.19. cents, making a total extent of Ac.2-32 cents. According to the petitioner, excess land was only less than 10%. That the inam lands were not previously surveyed and after passing of the Act, the inam lands were surveyed and during the said survey, on actual measurement within the boundaries, there is a marginal excess extent of 0.19 cents, which forms part of the land purchased by the petitioner. That the excess or deficit on survey belongs to the owner of the land. That as the inamdar had acquired both the warams in the public auction conducted by the District Munsif Court, Tirupati and as the legal heirs of inamdars sold both the warams to the petitioner, he is entitled for ryotwari patta in S.No. 383 including the excess land of Ac.2-13 cents. It is also stated that the entire land was under wet cultivation and the records also show that the entire land in Sy.No.383 is in possession of the petitioner. The Dy. Tahsildar, Chittoor after considering the evidence on record issued ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 vide his orders dated 16.2.1985. That the petitioner has purchased lands in S.No.36/3, 36/4, 37/2 measuring an extent of Ac.0-19 cents, 0-48 cents and 0-19 cents respectively situated in Tiruchanoor village from Vanjivakkam Kuppayya Pillai under a registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 2171, dated 20.7.1970 (which lands are now correlated to S.No. 385/2, 385/8 and 385/9 measuring an extent of Ac.0-15, 0-20 and 0-47 cents respectively). The said lands are minor inam lands held by Vanjivakkam Kuppayya Pillai and not included in the major inam grant. As the minor inamdar sold the land to the petitioner, the petitioner acquired both the warams and hence the Inam Dy. Tahsildar granted ryotwari patta for the aforesaid survey numbers also by his orders dated 16.2.1985, therefore the petitioner is in possession of the entire lands by virtue of grant of patta and paying the land revenue to the Government. As the claim has been made by the respondents that the assessed waste wet land i.e. AWW communal lands to an extent of 0-19 cents and 0-02 cents, the Collector filed an appeal before the Revenue Court i.e. Revenue Divisional officer, who set aside the grant in respect of the entire schedule land for which patta was granted by the Inam Dy. Tahsildar, Tirupati. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the appeal is only for the two survey numbers, setting aside the entire order is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also the contention of the appellant herein that when an appeal preferred by the appellant herein before the Commissioner of Appeals, the Commissioner did not clarify the points whether the cancellation of patta is only in respect of Sy.No. 383/4 and 383/10 or the entire schedule land mentioned in the order of the Inam Dy. Tahsildar. It is also contended that it is not open for the Collector to question the decision given under Section 3(3) of the Act which determines the nature of the land and when it became final under Section 7 of the Act, there are no valid reasons for preferring an appeal by the Collector after 9 years as the appeal has been preferred in 1994 against the orders passed by the inam Deputy Tahsildar dated 16.2.1985. An appeal has to be filed in a revenue Court within a period of 60 days from the grant of passing of such order under clause (2) of Section 7. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the said fact and also the fact that the survey made is intended only for the purpose of identification of fixation of boundaries but it cannot decide right, title and interest of the persons. Hence, the learned counsel submit that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition as to the classification by holding that the ryotwari patta granted under Annadeenam Poramboke. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the learned Single judge of this Court reported in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT.LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR,HYDERABAD DISTRICT[1] in support of his contention to say that the entries made in survey records does not confer any right, title and interest in the lands. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in VEERAPPA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR[2] to support his case that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation of 60 days under the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 7 of the Act in respect of grant of ryotwari patta, that appeal must be filed within 60 days and the revenue court vested with the power of appeal filed within the statutory limitation period of 60 days. The learned Govt. Pleader for Revenue on behalf of revenue department has argued that during the course of survey, it has come to the knowledge of the revenue department that there is an excess land of 0-20 cents and 0-02 cents in S.Nos. 383/6 and 383/10 respectively which comes to 0.22 cents, (which is excess land of 0-19 cents) and hence it is classified as AWW and it has come to the light that there is an excess land of 22 cents in S.No. 383 (comprising of 0-20 cents and 0-02 cents respectively) and they are classified as AWW and for the said extent the Ryotwari patta cannot be granted by the Tahsildar. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order under appeal. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd.’s case (1st cited supra) under Section 3, the lands have to be determined as that of inam lands and in this case the Deputy Tahsildar has determined that the lands are inam lands, situated in an Inam village and not held by any institution by his orders dated 15.9.1983 in Form No.II and published the same in the District Gazette as required by law. There is no material placed before this Court that the said order has been carried in appeal as per Section 3(3) of the Act. When an application is made by the appellant claiming that he is one of the subsequent purchasers from the legal heirs of the inamdar, the Deputy Tahsildar passed the said orders and the same was not questioned in any appeal within a period of 60 days as referred to sub-clause (2) of section 7 which reads thus: “Section 7. Grant of Ryotwari Pattas:- (1) xxx xxx (2) Any person or institution aggrieved by the grant of a ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) 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. (3) to (5) xxx” Even though a contention has been raised in the said appeal that the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the order of granting patta by the Tahsildar without taking into consideration the question of delay which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, yet the fact remains that the appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days as per sub-clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act and such appeal has to be filed by the Tahsildar or any other person aggrieved by the order of grant of ryotwari patta to the appellate authority. In this case, it is very clear that the Tahsildar has granted patta on 16.2.1985, the statutory appeal has been filed by the Collector before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 2.7.1994 which is evident from the order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide Proc.No.V3/645/98, dated 26.2.2001 which is impugned in the writ petition. They did not deal with the question of delay as contained in the provisions of subsection (2) of section 7 of the said Act. The learned Single Judge has also not dealt with the said question of delay, which is a statutory appeal as provided under clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act. We have gone through the merits of the case and come to the conclusion that the Revenue Divisional Officer has committed wrong by setting aside the ryotwari pattas in respect of the suit land granted in favour of the appellant by the Inams Dy. Tahsildar. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant has rightly contended that the delay of 9 years in filing the appeal itself is fatal to the case as it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. In view of the fact that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period, we are of the opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal has been preferred after 9 years that’s beyond the period of 60 days as contained in clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act has got some force. Further, as the learned counsel for the respondent has not explained the reasons for the said delay and in the absence of any such reasons forthcoming, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore the Writ Appeal is allowed as prayed for. In the result, the L.R. Petition is ordered and the Writ Appeal is allowed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 19.8.2008 CHV [1] 2001(3) A.L.T. 200 [2] 2002(5) A.L.D. 121 (D.B)