IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16414 of 2004 Between: 1 Sambarika Appal Rao, S/o. Late Bangari, R/o. Bakkannapalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sambarika Appal Rao, S/o. Late Appalaswamy, R/o. Bakkannapalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 M. Adinarayana, W/o. Guruvulu, R/o. C.B.M. Compound, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Stateof A.P. Represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner Land Revenue, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.SREERAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16414 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 16.12.1997 and 22.11.2001 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. 2. The petitioners ﬁled a revision petition before respondent No.2 against the order, dated 17.06.1995, passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam. The said revision was ﬁled under Section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondent No.2, by his order, dated 16.12.1997, rejected the said revision petition on the ground that the petitioners ﬁled the revision petition beyond the prescribed limitation and that they failed to explain the reasons for delay by ﬁling a delay condonation petition. 3. At the hearing, Sri S.Sriramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order, which was impugned in the revision petition ﬁled before respondent No.2, was passed on 17.06.1995 and the revision petition was ﬁled before respondent No.2 on 19.07.1995. He submitted that the period of limitation shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of copy of the order and that respondent No.2 has not given any ﬁnding as to the date on which order copy was served on the petitioners. 4. Though a Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramachandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and two others[1] held that no period of limitation is prescribed by the Act for ﬁling revision either under Section 5(2) or under Section 7 of the Act, in the rules framed by the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Act, limitation is prescribed. The said rules were notiﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.36, Revenue, dated 21.11.1956, according to which, where enquiries under Section 11 are conducted under the new procedure, further revision petitions shall lie to the Director of Settlements and the Board of Revenue against the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer and the Director of Settlements respectively within thirty days of the date of the respective orders. Evidently, this Rule was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. 5. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that the expression from the date of the order shall be construed as “from the date of receipt of the order”. So construed, it is quite evident that the order of Settlement Oﬃcer, which was questioned in revision, was passed on 17.06.1995. In the absence of any material to show that the same was served on the petitioner on the same day, it is reasonable to presume that service of the order would have taken atleast two days’ time. In such a case, the petitioners would have received the order copy at the earliest on 19.06.1995. Under the provisions of the General Clause Act, if limitation commences from a particular day, the day on which it commences shall be excluded. Therefore, the revision petition ﬁled by the petitioners on 19.07.1995 can be considered as being well within time. 6. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to entertain the revision ﬁled by the petitioners and decide the same on merits, after giving them an opportunity of hearing. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28.08.2008 v v [1] 1990 (II) An.W.R.534 (D.B.)