IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2520 of 2009 Between: 1 L. Venkata Lakshmamma, W/o. Chinna Chengala Rayachari, R/o. H.No. 3-8, Kapu Street, Puttur, Chittoor District. 2 L. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. L. Kumara Swamy, R/o. H.No. 3-7, Kapu Street, Puttur, Chittoor District. 3 L. Bhaskara Rao, S/o. L. Kumara Swamy, R/o. H.No. 3-7, Kapu Street, Puttur, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector -cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Tahsildar, Puttur, Chittoor District. .....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 issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent passed in CCLA's Ref.No. P3/1901/2003 dated 29-09-2008 confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents passed in R.P.No. 75/99(B2) dated 09-10-2003 and P.Dis.No. 15451/97(F/2197/79) dated 25-07-1999 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent herein to consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta under Sec. 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners initiated steps for grant of ryotwari patta over an extent of Acs.3.36 cents of land in survey Nos.196/4, 5 301/2 and 303/7 of Putturu Village, Chittoor District, under the provisions of the A.P. Abolition (AA) of Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). There was a delay of about 5½ years in presenting the application before the Settlement Officer. Hence, the application was filed, with a petition, to condone the delay. The Settlement Officer, Nellore, passed an order, dated 22.10.1979, condoning the delay and granting relief to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the District Collector, Chittoor, filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements. The appeal was allowed on a technical ground through order, dated 31.07.1980. It was observed that no independent discussion was undertaken for condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the primary authority, by which time, the Joint Collector came to be designated as Settlement Officer. On remand, the Joint Collector, Chittoor, passed an order, dated 25.07.1999, refusing to condone the delay. Appeal preferred to the Director of Settlement was dismissed on 09.10.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed further appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals and the same was dismissed on 29.09.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It was a long drawn battle for the petitioners to assert their rights under the Act. Though the petitioners and their family have been enjoying the land, for the past several decades, they could not keep track of the developments in law. With the enactment of the Act, it became necessary for the petitioners to file application before the Settlement Officer. By the time they realized this, there was delay of about 5 years. The Settlement Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners and granted the relief. On the sole ground that independent discussion was not undertaken for condoning the delay, the appellate authority interfered and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand, the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer had just noted the fact that there was delay and rejected the application by saying that the reasons in the affidavit filed by the petitioners are not convincing. Another reason mentioned by him is that though the petitioners were given number of chances to represent the case, participate in the enquiry and to adduce evidence, they did not turn up. The authority was not clear as to whether he was not convinced or not about the grounds for condonation of delay. The order is vague. The petitioners cannot be expected to attend on every date of hearing, that too, when the matter is hanging for the past several decades, without any tangible result. The Director of Settlement, in his order, dated 31.07.1980 held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply. Being farmers, the petitioners are not supposed to keep track of every development in law. This is not a case where they have been served with any proceedings, and have chosen to remain indifferent, for years together. Recent experience discloses that claims under the Act as well as other similar enactments are being entertained, even decades after their coming into force, that at the instance of the Government also. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Joint Collector is set aside. The delay is condoned and the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer is directed to examine the case of the petitioners on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.02.2009. GJ