IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2008 Between: Kattegummala Venkata Reddy ..... Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District, AtLakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2. The Madal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Thakkellapalli (V), Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Marredpally Raghuma Reddy ..... Respondents/Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2008 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.F2/2869/2007, dismissing the appeal filed under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (in short, “the Act”), against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam, passed in File No.A/63/1991, dated 23.05.1991, under Section 40 of the said Act in respect of Acres 14.32 guntas in S.No.220 of Takkelapally Village of Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The factual background for the revision is that Abdullunnisa Begum was stated to be the pattedar for Acres 14.32 guntas in S.No.220 in respect of which land Maredpally Chinna Jangaiah, the father of the third respondent herein was recorded as the tenant. The said protected tenant was stated to have purchased the said land and his name was stated to have been recorded as a Pattedar. The land was then claimed to have been sold to M. Narsi Reddy under an unregistered document of sale, whose name was mutated as pattedar through the Court decree in O.S.No.46 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam. The said purchaser gifted Acres 7.06 guntas to his grand daughters under a registered Gift Deed No.1053/1996 dated 25.05.1996 and gifted the remaining Acres 7.26 guntas to his elder son M. Lal Reddy under another registered Gift Deed No.2501/1990. Thereafter, an extent of Acres 2.00 guntas was claimed to have been purchased by K. Sandhya Rani with permission from the Court under a registered Sale Deed No.1169/2000 dated 23.03.2000 and Acres 5.26 guntas were claimed to have been sold to the appellant/revision petitioner who is the father of K. Sandhya Rani under a registered Sale Deed No.1034/2006 dated 01.08.2006. The revision petitioner claimed that since then, he and his daughter are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and their names were got mutated in the Revenue records and individual Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued in their favour. The revision petitioner claimed that M. Lal Reddy sold Acres 3.00 of land to one K. Swapna Priya, who is also another daughter of the revision petitioner and one Rajesh Goud under a registered Sale Deed No.812/98 dated 02.05.1998, whose names were also mutated and in whose favour the Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued. The revision petitioner claimed that the respondent filed a petition under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of possession in respect of the said land in the possession of himself and his daughters, though he cannot be claimed to be the legal heir of any protected tenant as his father was no more a protected tenant. Hence, he filed the appeal. 3. The Joint Collector in the impugned order recorded that he heard the learned counsel for both the parties and without going into the merits of the claim, observed that the present appeal was barred by sheer antiquity and obscurity of the transaction and hence, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation after noting that the appeal was filed after lapse of more than 15 years from the date of the Tahsildar’s order under challenge. He observed that under Section 93 of the Act, the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days from the date of decision or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow and considered lapse of 15 years to be not reasonable by any stretch of imagination. 4. The dismissal of the appeal made the revision petitioner approach this Court, who referred to the factual background in detail in the grounds of revision and contended that a separate petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the appeal and no orders were passed thereon. The revision petitioner contended that it is only on receiving the notice in File No.A/6188/2006 dated 19.10.2006 that he came to know, in due course after engaging a counsel, about the earlier proceedings, which were passed without any notice due to which he or his vendor had no knowledge of the earlier proceedings. The revision petitioner therefore contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The revision petitioner filed a further affidavit before this Court during the course of hearing today in which it was explained in detail that the notice in File No.A/6188/2006 dated 19.10.2006 was first served on the revision petitioner on 26.10.2006 which notice did not elaborate the purpose for which it was given. He claimed to have engaged a counsel on 28.10.2006 on whom the copies of the applications under Section 32 of the Act were served on 02.12.2006. The revision petitioner claimed thereafter to have taken steps to obtain the copies of the proceedings from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer which could be obtained with much delay as the record is related to 1991. The revision petitioner further stated that he filed his counter to the application on 16.06.2007 and on receiving a Xerox copy from the applicant’s counsel concerning the proceedings dated 25.05.1991, the revision petitioner came to know that there was an order of grant of succession in File No.A/63/91 which he challenged by way of the appeal in question on legal advice on 30.06.2007 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order under challenge from opposite party. Therefore, the revision petitioner pleaded that the delay, if any, was neither wilful nor wanton but due to ignorance of the earlier proceedings and the delay ought to be considered for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to avoid prejudice and irreparable loss to the revision petitioner. 6. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent. None appeared for the respondents 1 and 2. As the subject matter of adjudication in this revision petition is concerning the questions in controversy between the revision petitioner and the third respondent only, any appearance of the respondents 1 and 2 need not be awaited. 7. The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the appeal in question is to be considered for condonation in the interests of justice. 8. Section 93 of the Act prescribes that every appeal under the Act shall be filed within 60 days from the date of the order against which the appeal is filed and the provisions under Sections 5 and 12 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, were extended to such appeals for the purposes of extension and computation of the period of the limitation. The revision petitioner claims that by way of abundant caution, he also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal in question for condonation of any delay that may be considered to have occurred in the filing of the appeal. 9. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, passed the order in File No.A/63/1991 on 23.05.1991 that the third respondent herein is entitled for obtaining succession rights of his father as protected tenant in respect of Acres 14.32 guntas in S.No.220 of Takkelapally Village. The order shows that no individual notices appeared to have been issued to any person before passing the said order though a publication is stated to have been made to know if any objections are there in this regard. In the absence of any objections received after such publication, the order was passed but the details of when, where and how such a publication was made are not elaborated in the order and it is thus not known whether it can be presumed that the revision petitioner should be deemed or considered to have had any constructive notice of the proceedings leading to the said order. The notice dated 19.10.2006 was specifically addressed to the revision petitioner and his two daughters in which the land of Acres 14.32 guntas in S.No.220 was stated to be tenancy land and the subject of the notice is as if it relates to some claim between the third respondent herein and others. The revision petitioner and his daughters were directed to appear before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam Mandal, along with the documentary evidence in respect of their claim, failing which the matter will be decided on the material on record. The claim of the revision petitioner that he came to know for the first time about these proceedings only after receiving that notice on 26.10.2006 cannot be brushed aside in the absence of any material on record, as of now, to show that he would have been aware of the proceedings earlier and though the order said to be challenged by the revision petitioner in appeal was passed on 23.05.1991 and though he preferred the appeal after a lapse of about more than 15 years, the affidavit of the revision petitioner filed before this Court today explains the course of events that had happened since the receipt of the notice dated 19.10.2006 by the revision petitioner till the filing of the appeal on 30.06.2007. The revision petitioner claims about obtaining copies of different documents/proceedings after the receipt of the notice on 26.10.2006 and his particular claim about a Xerox copy of the proceedings dated 23.05.1991 being received only on 16.06.2007 need not be suspected or disbelieved in the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the material on record and he filed the appeal on 30.06.2007 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which he seeks to challenge in the appeal before the Joint Collector. The case appears to be one where the normal liberal approach generally adopted in case of requests under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be extended for the benefit of the revision petitioner. 10. Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS. UJAGAR SINGH AND OTHERS[1] in this regard wherein the apex Court pointed out that in considering an application for condonation of delay, there is no straitjacket formula prescribed and each case has to be weighed from the facts and circumstances of its own relating to the manner in which the party acted and behaved. The apex Court thus made the question whether sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not to be dependent on the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the party applying for such condonation, who, of course, should not have been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. The principles are unexceptionable and it is well settled that any considerations under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will always receive liberal interpretation so as to advance the cause of substantial justice to enable a decision on merits of the questions in controversy between the parties than on any technical considerations based on the lapses or the default of the parties. Keeping the said principles in view, it has to be concluded that the revision petitioner, who appears to have had no knowledge of the proceedings which he now seeks to challenge in appeal till after service of the notice dated 19.10.006, cannot be considered to have been absolutely negligent and reckless in not defending his rights in the property in question and the delay ought to have been considered for condonation on appropriate terms. Hence, it is to be concluded that the delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned on suitable terms and there is no need to remit the matter back for determination of the said question of limitation all over again in the light of the entire factual background being placed before this Court by the parties. 11. Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner also desired that this Court itself may decide the questions of jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant succession under Section 40 of the Act, the jurisdiction to pass any such order without following the principles of natural justice and without notice to the persons interested and the question of the entitlement of the third respondent herein to claim any succession of protected tenancy rights of his father in the light of his father acquiring a larger estate even during his life time by purchase from the original pattedar/land lord, etc. The learned counsel referred to Section 91 of the Act which enables the High Court to not only consider whether the Original or Appellate Authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them but also to consider whether in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or Appellate Authority acted illegally or with material regularity. The provision ex facie may appear to confer jurisdiction on the High Court to examine the original order and the Appellate Order in depth on merits but any such determination of such questions in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction will disable the party, who may fail, from having the further opportunity of questioning such findings adverse to him, in case of a decision on merits being given by the High Court itself. If the appropriate Appellate Authority as per the statute/Joint Collector decides all the questions in controversy on merits, the unsuccessful party will have an opportunity of again approaching the High Court with the statutory revision which enables a re-consideration in depth of all the issues of controversy to do substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, any judicial discretion of this Court should not be exercised with reference to Section 91 of the Act to consider the other questions in controversy which were not gone into by the Joint Collector, while passing the impugned order and it is open to the revision petitioner to raise all such questions before the Joint Collector which shall be determined by him on merits in accordance with law and it is needless to state that it is equally open to the third respondent also to raise all questions of fact and law, which he wishes to raise before the Joint Collector in this regard, which also shall have to be determined on merits by the Joint Collector in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity to both the parties. The learned counsel for both the parties also desired that a reasonable time frame may be fixed for the Joint Collector to dispose of the appeal on merits, in view of the age of the litigation, which is nearly completing two decades and the Joint Collector can be requested to dispose of the appeal on merits, in case of condonation of the delay on satisfaction of the terms to be imposed herein, within a reasonable time. 12. In the result, the order in Case No.F2/2869/2007 dated 15.12.2007 of the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside and the said appeal shall be taken on file, if it is otherwise in order, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District within two weeks from today and providing proof of payment of such costs, to the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District. In case of non-compliance with the condition, the appeal shall stand rejected. In case of compliance with the condition, the appeal, on being taken on file, shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law by the Joint Collector as expeditiously as possible after every reasonable opportunity to both parties, at any rate not later than three months from the date of the appeal being taken on file. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 03, 2010 Note: C.C. today (B/o) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2008 September 03, 2010. KL [1] (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 786