HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17663 of 2003 Date: 08.12.2011 Between: Bolli Arjuna … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeal, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17663 of 2003 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of 1.85 hectares of land situated in Sy.Nos.103/2, 102/6, 106/21 and 72, Morramvanigudem, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District, which is a notified scheduled area. It is stated that the petitioner’s mother made a claim for Ryotwari patta under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (Regulation 2/1970). By order dated 21.01.1984 the respondent No.3 disallowed her claim holding that she failed to produce documentary evidence showing her continuous possession for a continuous period of not less than 8 years before the notified date i.e., 1.7.1971. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 4.5.1998 before the 2nd respondent. The said appeal was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 29.06.2001, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Though the petitioner preferred a further appeal under Section 9(3) of A.P. Regulation 2/1970, the said appeal was also dismissed by the first respondent by order dated 23.04.2003. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the orders dated 23.04.2003 and 29.06.2001 are arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The impugned orders are assailed primarily on the ground that the order dated 21.01.1984 passed by the 3rd respondent was not communicated to the petitioner’s mother and therefore the 60 days time prescribed under Section 9(3) of A.P. Regulation 2/1970 shall be computed only from the date on which the certified copy of the said order was furnished to the petitioner. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, particularly the finding of fact recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the order dated 21.01.1984 was communicated to the petitioner’s mother and she had acknowledged the same, I am unable to accept the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said order till the certified copy was obtained on 28.04.1998. In the circumstances, as rightly held by the respondents 1 & 2, there was a delay of more than 13 years and therefore they were justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders under challenge warrant no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 08.12.2011 KLP/SP