IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11662 of 1996 Between: Bathala Kalappa Naidu (died) and others ..... PETITIONERs AND The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Namaplly Station Road, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTs Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 11662 OF 1996 ORDER: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent in File No. P3/1639/83, dated 25.4.1996. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Paimaish No. 273, admeasuring Ac.20-00 situated at Banupalli village of erstwhile Srikalahasthi taluk, Chittoor district. The petitioner alleges that the said land was held by one Gali Kalappa Naidu and Bathala Narsappa Naidu for several years prior to abolition of estate. The petitioner in the present case is the adopted son of the said Bathala Narasappa Naidu. It is alleged that after the death of another joint owner Gali Kalappa Naidu, his heirs sold away their share to the father of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 29.4.1961 and then the petitioner’s father and after him, the petitioner became the exclusive owner of the said 20 acres of land. The land originally was Paimaish land bearing No. 273 which was later correlated to R.S.Nos. 173/1, 173/2, 173/3, 177, 178, 179 and 180/part. It is alleged that during the survey and settlement operations the petitioner was granted patta to an extent of Ac.4-73 cents in R.S.No. 173/1 and also to an extent of Ac.4-85 cents in R.S.Nos. 177 to 179. Thus out of the total entitlement of 20 acres, the petitioner was only granted patta to an extent of Ac.9-58 cents and patta was not granted in respect of remaining land. Thereupon the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor who rejected the said claim on 31.12.1966. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam who had allowed the revision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor by order dated 29.8.1967. After remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor again rejected the grant of patta by order dated 20.12.1968. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad who, under the orders dated 30.1.1976, allowed the said revision and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Nellore. By order dated 28.7.1977 again the petitioner’s application was rejected. Whereupon the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent-Director of Settlement, Hyderabad along with an application seeking condonation of delay. By order dated 15.11.1979 the 2nd respondent in proceedings R.P.No. A1-140/79 considered the said application for condonation of delay and after being satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the delay, had condoned the delay and admitted the revision petition for hearing. Later the 2nd respondent called for the records and after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petition of the petitioner in part by order dated 27.4.1983 in RP No. 140/79 granting patta to the petitioner in respect of R.S.Nos. 173/2 and 173/3, admeasuring Ac.4-24 cents and Ac.3-14 cents respectively and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer, Nellore, for fresh enquiry after personal inspection, in respect of the claim of the petitioner for R.S.No. 180/part. Aggrieved by the said order, the Collector, Chittoor filed a further revision before the 1st respondent in File No. P3/1639/83. Under the impugned order the first respondent allowed the said revision by setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 27.4.1983. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and I have also examined the orders of the respondents 1 and 2, referred to above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the 20 acres of land is found recorded in the revenue records and was rightly appreciated by the 2nd respondent. He submits that the only contention with which the 2nd respondent did not agree prima facie was with regard to the nature of the land in S.No. 180/part and to that extent he had remanded the matter to Settlement Officer, Nellore for fresh enquiry after personal inspection. The learned counsel, therefore, states that the first respondent has merely set aside the aforesaid order of the 2nd respondent on the ground of limitation which is totally erroneous. 5. It is seen from the impugned order of the 1st respondent that while he heard the revision petition on merits, he set aside the order of the 2nd respondent only on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not justified in condoning the delay. The revision petition filed before the 1st respondent was, in fact, against the final order of the 2nd respondent dated 27.4.1983. So far as the order of condonation of delay passed by the 2nd respondent is concerned, the same was subject matter of a separate order of the 2nd respondent dated 15.11.1979. Even accepting that while considering the validity of the final order, an interlocutory order can also be questioned, but whether the said proposition would apply to the condonation of delay ordered by the original authority is still a debatable question. However, without going into the said aspect, it is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Normally, appellate/revisional court will be slow to interfere with discretion exercised by authority in condoning the delay. The delay in presentation of the revision was condoned by the 2nd respondent after having been satisfied, and the said discretion exercised by the 2nd respondent, therefore, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unjustified. In any case, discretion of this nature could not have been interfered with by the appellate authority even if the appellate authority was holding a different view. The 1st respondent has not dealt with any aspect on the merits while upsetting the order of the 2nd respondent, on merits. 6. I am, therefore, of the view, that interest of justice would be served by remitting the revision petition in File No. P3/1639/83 to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration by setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition. The 1st respondent shall hear the parties and dispose of the revision petition on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. No costs. KR ____________ 11.12.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }