IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 15486 of 2002 Between: Gajjela Rami Reddy S/o. China Anki Reddy R/o. Vemula Village, Umamaheswarapuram Post, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Panta Yedukondalu S/o. Late Sidda Reddy R/o. Rajagopalareddinagar, Hamlet of Vemula, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings L.D.S.No. 1378/2002, dated 17.7.2002 passed by the 1st respondent in rejecting my appeal dated 27.6.2002 filed against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1.6.1988 in limini as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15486 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the proceedings, dated 17.07.2002, issued by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders, dated 01.06.1988, passed by the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur, in having issued assignment to the 3rd respondent in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.460/6 of Vemula village, was rejected at the admission stage. It appears, petitioner No.1, who died during pendency of the writ petition, was issued a settlement patta in the year 1965 in respect of land to an extent of Acs.2.65 gts., Acs.2.45 gts. and Acs.4.75 gts. in Sy.Nos.460/1, 460/2 and 460/3 respectively of Vemula village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District, along with other lands, and since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. However, when the revenue authorities did not implement the settlement patta, issued in favour of petitioner No.1, in the revenue records, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.7381 of 1986 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 26.06.1986, allowed the writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 along with District Collector to implement the patta in the revenue records, and the said orders were confirmed in the writ appeal being W.A.No.987 of 1987 preferred by the Government. Thereupon, the Government complied with the orders passed in W.P.No.7381 of 1986. Petitioner No.1 was also issued a pattadar pass book in respect of the lands allotted to him. While that being so, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.197 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Darsi seeking permanent injunction restraining petitioner No.1 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.460/6 of Vemula village on the ground that he was issued assignment patta in respect of the said land by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 01.06.1988. Along with the said suit, the 3rd respondent also filed I.A. No.602 of 2001 seeking temporary injunction and obtained ex parte orders of temporary injunction by order dated 10.12.2001. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner No.1 filed CMA No.7 of 2001 and the appellate Court, by order dated 14.12.2001 in I.A.No.584 of 2001 in CMA.No.7 of 2001, granted stay of the order dated 10.12.2001 passed in I.A.No.602 of 2001 in O.S.No.197 of 2001. Thereafter, questioning the assignment patta issued in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the subject land, the petitioner No.1 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, the 1st respondent herein, along with an application to condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. The grievance of petitioner No.1 is that the 1st respondent, contrary to the procedure, in limini, dismissed the appeal vide proceedings dated 17.07.2002 stating that the appeal is time barred as per B.S.O. 15 (15). Challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner No.1 filed the appeal before the 1st respondent within 30 days from the date of his knowledge of issuance of assignment patta in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the land, which was already allotted to petitioner No.1 under settlement patta, there is no question of delay in filing the appeal. He also submits that the assignment of the subject land was made to the 3rd respondent without issuing any notice to petitioner No.1 though the said land was in possession and enjoyment of petitioner No.1 by virtue of settlement patta issued to him as early as in the year 1965. He also submits that, in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.7381 of 1986, which were confirmed in writ appeal, the Government implemented the settlement patta in the revenue record. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 supported issuance of impugned order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the 1st respondent. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.3 and there was no representation on his behalf. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material made available on record. A thorough reading of the impugned order shows that the appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is time barred as per Board Standing Order 15 (15). A plain reading of paragraph 16 of the Board Standing Order 15 reads as hereunder:- “Admission of time-barred appeals:- Any appellate authority referred to in paragraph 15 may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation therein laid down, provided he is satisfied that the appellant had good and sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within such period.” Thus, paragraph 16 of the Board Standing Order 15 contemplates that appeal can be entertained by the appellate authority even after expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that the appellant had good and sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time. In the case on hand, admittedly, petitioner No.1 was not issued any notice before issuance of assignment patta in favour of the 3rd respondent. According to petitioner No.1, granting of assignment patta in favour of the 3rd respondent was not within his knowledge and he came to know about the same only when interim injunction orders dated 10.12.2001 passed in I.A.No.602 of 2001 in O.S.No.197 of 2001 were served on him, and thereafter he applied for certified copy of the assignment patta granted in favour of the 3rd respondent and obtained the same on 13.06.2002, and then preferred appeal before the 1st respondent along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case that petitioner No.1 was not served with notice while passing the assignment patta in favour of 3rd respondent and that he filed the appeal from the date of his knowledge and also in view of paragraph 16 of the Board Standing Order 15, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not time-barred and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, remanding the matter to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kankukur, for considering the same afresh as to the limitation and also on the merits of the case and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.06.2009 v v