IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.24 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2007 in WP NO : 7142 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Smt. Hafeeza Begum W/o Syed Khaja Naseeruddin r/o H. No. 5-6-600, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Sultan Fatima W/o Syed yaseem Quadri R/o Flat No. 101, Victoria Residency, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Butul Fatima W/o Late Abdul Khader R/o 19-5-19, Kishen bagh, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. Ruqia Fatima W/o Kaleemuddin Quadri R/o 19-5-19, Kishen bagh, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Ameena Fatima W/o Hamid Hussaini R/o H.No. 5-9-1069, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 6 Smt. Zaihara Fatima W/o Late. Md. Ikbal R/o 10-5-3/2/1/E, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 7 Smt. Sugara Fatima W/o Nadeem R/o 8-2-399/A/2, road No.5 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 8 Syed Zainulabuddin Hussaini S/o Syed Sabir Hussaini R/o 8-2-602/38/2, road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9 Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussaini s/o Late Syed Qutubuddin Hussaini R/o H. No. 5-6-535, Nampally, Hyderabad. 10 Syed Alimuddin Hussaini S/o Late Syed Qutubuddin Hussaini r/o 5-6-535, Nampally, Hyderabad. 11 Smt. Azizunissa Begum D/o Syed Sabir Hussaini R/o H. No. 10-5-1/3/C, Masabtank, Hyderabad. 12 Smt. Muneerunissa Begum D/o Syed Sabir Hussaini R/o Abid Manzil, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 13 Sri Md. Zaheeruddin ALi Khan S/o MD. Basheeruddin Ali Khan r/o H. No. 5-6-530, Nampally, Hyderabad. 14 Sri Mohd. Mazeruddin Ali Khan S/o Md. Basheeruddin Ali Khan R/o H. No. 5-6-530, Nampally, Hyderabad. 15 Syed Sasamuddin Hussaini S/o Late. Syed Hashim Hussaini r/o H. No. 5-6-530, nampally, Hyderabad 16 Syed Ethashamuddin Hussaini S/o Late Syed Hashim Hussaini r/o H. No. 5-6-530, nampally, Hyderabad 17 Smt. Imtiyaz Banu W/o Syed Alabaq Ahmed r/o H. No. 5-6-530, Nampally, Hyderabad 18 Syed Sabir Hussaini S/o Syed Zainulabeddin Hussaini r/o H. No. 8-2-602/38/2, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 19 Syed Bandenawaz Hussaini S/o Syed Zainulabeddin hussaini R/o H. No. 8-2-602/38/2, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 20 Smt. Akber Fatimla W/o Syed Akber Nizamuddin Hussaini R/o Nampally, Hyderabad. 21 Smt. Moinunissa Begum W/o Mohd. Khaleque R/o Masabtank, Hyderabad. 22 Smt. Shaimasunissa Begum W/o Zahed Ali Khan R/o Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 23 Md. Zahid Ali Khan S/o Abid Ali Khan R/o Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Hyderabad. 24 Md. Shaied Ali Khan S/o Abid Ali Khan R/o Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. Rep. through their G.P.A. Holder:- 25 Syed Bandenawaz Hussain S/o Syed Zainulabeddin Hussaini R/o H. No. 8-2-602/38/2, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapool at Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer/Ranga Reddy East Division, Kattalmandi, Hyderabad 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 M/s. GPR Housing Private Ltd., rep .by Managing Director, G. Punna Rao GPR. House, OPP. to Goldspot, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 5 Pilli Jangaiah S/o P. Mallaiah 6 Pilli yadaiah S/o Pilli Pochaiah 7 Smt. N. Padmamma D/o Ch. Venkatrama Reddy 8 P. Chinna Yadaiah S/o Not Known 9 K. Yettaiah S/o K. Pentaiah 10 Ch. Balaiah S/o Ch. Gopaiah 11 Laxmi narsimha Reddy S/o Bheemi Reddy 12 C. Narayana Reddy S/o Linga Reddy 13 T. Chendraiah S/o Devaiah 14 Mohd. Abdul Khader S/o Mohd. Jahangir (Sl.Nos. 5 to 14 are R/o Peddamberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants : MR.VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.24 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and also Sri G.Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 09-04-2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7142 of 2007, dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellants are the petitioners and the respondents are respondents in W.P.No.7142 of 2007. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition was filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in dismissing the appeal case No.F1/1678/2004, dated 08-11-2005 on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, as arbitrary and unreasonable. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that their great grand-father was the possessor and pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.402.20 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.250 to 265, 267, 272 to 279, 281, 293 to 295, 322, 323, 325 to 328 and 346, situated at Peddamberpet Kalan Village of Hayathnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, and was in enjoyment of the said land since 1303 Fasli (1902). Subsequently, the rights have been transferred in the name of the grand-father of the petitioners. When the said rights have been cascaded to the grand-father of the petitioners, particularly as on the date of 01-11-1973, on which date the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) came into effect, whey were the pattadars of the said land and to that effect entries were also made in the revenue records, showing that their right as possessors and title holders has been in continuous operation since 1303 Fasli. 7. Therefore, as on the crucial date i.e., 01-11-1973, by virtue of the entries made in the revenue records, the petitioners have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the disputed land as possessors and pattadars. It is the contention of the petitioners that when a modal house was raised in the land, they came to know that rights have been conferred on the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 14. Therefore, on issuing a legal notice, dated 18-11-2003, by the petitioners, a reply notice was issued by the unofficial respondents on 25-11-2003. Basing on the contents of the said reply notice, dated 25-11-2003, copies of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) were obtained by the petitioners and filed a writ petition W.P.No.1441 of 2004 and this Court, by order, dated 28-01-2004, disposed of the said writ petition with a liberty to the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy by way of filing appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, i.e., the first respondent herein, as contemplated under Section 24 of the Act. 8. Accordingly, it appears that the petitioners had filed an appeal as provided under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Initially, though the first respondent, who is the competent authority, had taken the appeal on file, eventually by order, dated 08-11- 2005, dismissed the same on the ground that the said appeal had been preferred after a long lapse of more than two decades, therefore, the same was to be treated as filed beyond the period of limitation. Challenging the said order, dated 08-11-2005, of the first respondent, the present writ petition W.P.No.7142 of 2007 came to be filed. 9. The learned single Judge, having agreed with the reasoning accorded by the first respondent, by the impugned order, dated 09-04-2007, dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present writ appeal. 10. As already pointed out, it is the case of the petitioners that their title has to be traced with effect from 1303 Fasli, which is evident from the entries made in the revenue records from 1973-74. The pahanis since that year have been consistently showing the names of the petitioners as pattadars and possessors of the disputed land, despite which certain rights have been created in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14 in the year 1984. 11. The factum of creating rights under the Act was brought to light by the learned Government Pleader stating that in the year 1984 occupancy rights have been created in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14. 12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the very act of conferring rights whatsoever, in any manner or by any means, is contrary to the rights already created in favour of the petitioners, atleast with effect from 1973-74, as could be evident from the revenue records like pahanis etc. 13. It has been further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, for the first time, the petitioners came to know that their rights were affected by virtue of massive construction of a modal house. Therefore, from the date of knowledge of alleged construction of modal house by the petitioners, the cause of action arose to the petitioners to challenge any action of the revenue authorities or respondent Nos.5 to 14. In other words, the period of limitation for filing the Statutory appeal as provided under Section 24 of the Act would and should have to be reckoned/computed from the date of their knowledge of the alleged construction of modal house. 14. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that rights have been created in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14 in the year 1984, which was not disputed. This contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be countenanced for the reason that the denial is with regard to creation of rights in the year 1984, but not on other material aspects. 15. In this connection, it is to be seen that the date of knowledge is with effect from what date? Is it from the date of knowledge of the alleged construction of modal house or from the date of the alleged conferment of rights in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14? 16. In our considered view, absolutely, these are all questions of fact, which have to be gone into only by an appropriate authority created under the Statute, which is no other than the first respondent herein. 17. Now, the question is as to whether the petitioners have approached the first respondent by way of appeal within the prescribed time or not? 18. Section 24 of the Act is the relevant provision, which is extracted hereunder: “24. Appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed authority:-- (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector under Section 10 may, within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final. (2) If any question arise whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final.” 19. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of Act, it is abundantly clear that, no doubt, the period of limitation as against any order passed under Section 10 of the Act is thirty days. But, the language employed in the very section “or such further time as prescribed” makes it abundantly clear that the appellate authority has the power to prescribe or extend the time of limitation, from time to time, for filing the appeal. 20. Therefore, from the above said expression, it is obvious that though the principles of Limitation Act, 1963, as postulated under Section 5, are applicable, the same have to be applied with all reasonableness. 21. To put it in a different way, such a discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised by the appellate authority in a judicial manner keeping in view the totality of the circumstances by examining as to whether such circumstances warrants entertaining the appeal in the light of various disputed questions of fact. By reason of rejecting the appeal on the mere ground of limitation would only lead to proliferation of litigation. 22. The quasi-judicial authority, in normal course, shall make all its efforts to resolve the dispute on merits rather than applying the strict principles of the Limitation Act, particularly when the questions involved are serious in nature and calls for a detailed examination of the whole issue, which exercise cannot be undertaken by any other authority or even by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. In a way, rejection of the appeal, particularly an appeal of the present nature consisting of various disputed questions of fact, which are to be verified from the revenue records, on the ground of limitation may amounts to rejection of exercising its Statutory jurisdiction. 24. Exercising of the discretionary jurisdiction either in favour of the petitioners or rejecting the same is thinlined. It is only for such appellate authority to arrive at a just conclusion as to whether the facts require indepth investigation, keeping in view the magnitude of the litigation and the number of questions of fact involved, in order to give a quietus to the litigation. The appellate authority cannot also forget the fact that both the parties are relying on the entries made in the revenue records, which are in the custody of the revenue authorities or its subordinate officers. Therefore, even from the point of convenience and also in order to resolve the complex questions of fact, it is always expedient for the appellate authority to keep aside the strict principles of limitation in the interest of both the parties. 25. It is further noticed by the appellate authority that there is a basic dispute of fact i.e., as per the contention of the petitioners the entries in the revenue records would show their rights as well as possession with effect from 1973-74 and, on the other hand, as per the contention of the unofficial respondents, particularly respondent No.4, the rights have been created in favour of the unofficial respondents in the year 1984. If this is to be taken into account, the rights that have been created and recognised in favour of the petitioners are much prior to the rights conferred by the authorities in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14. 26. Of course, we cannot express any opinion on this aspect. What all we want to put on record is that this is a serious question, which has to be gone into and decided by the appellate authority after verification of records and other facts. 27. There are various other questions, which have been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and also the learned Government Pleader. However, we are not inclined to go into all those questions and we are clear in our mind that those are serious questions of fact, which are to be gone into only by the first respondent and the aspect of limitation also has to be considered while deciding the issue basing on its merits, more particularly having regard to the contention of the petitioners that they came to know about the violation of their rights over the disputed land only after noticing the alleged construction of modal house. 28. Therefore, it is for the appellate authority i.e., the first respondent herein to record a finding whether the limitation starts either from the date of conferment of occupancy rights strictly in accordance with Section 27 of the Limitation Act, or from the date of knowledge i.e., from the date of notice of the alleged construction of modal house by the unofficial respondents. 29. In any event, all the questions, which are more related with the merits of the case, are desirable to be gone into by the appellate authority instead of keeping the dispute alive for many more years to come. 30. For the foregoing, we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned single Judge suffers from infirmity and the writ appeal is to be allowed. 31. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order, dated 09-04-2007, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7142 of 2007, and the first respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners afresh and dispose of the same on merits basing on the records made available to him by both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to all the contesting parties. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. However, this order shall not be understood as having expressed any opinion whatsoever basing on merits of the case and the first respondent shall dispose of the appeal strictly on merits. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 08-12-2008. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.24 of 2008 08-12-2008 (Msr)