THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19977 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners were granted ryotwari pattas under the Estates Abolition Act in respect of Ac.3.76 cents of land in Survey No.388/10 of Settipalli Village, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District by the Settlement Officer, Nellore vide proceedings dated 13.11.1987. Aggrieved by that, the District Collector preferred a revision before the Director of Settlements with a petition to condone the delay of about two and half years. Through order, dated 22.11.1990, the Director of Settlements condoned the delay. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a further revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, 1st respondent herein. It was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Director of Settlements for fresh consideration and disposal. After remand, through order, dated 12.05.2000, the Director of Settlements dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Thereupon, the Mandal Revenue Officer, 4th respondent herein filed a further revision before the 1st respondent. The revision was allowed through order, dated 09.12.2005. In his order, the 1st respondent found fault with the very grant of ryotwari pattas in favour of the petitioners for various reasons mentioned therein. The petitioners challenge the said order. The petitioners contend that the subject matter of the revision before the 1st respondent was only an application for condonation of delay and despite the same, he travelled beyond the scope of that petition and had virtually set aside the ryotwari pattas issued to them. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioners did not turn up in spite of notices and that the impugned order was passed duly taking the relevant facts on record. The grant of ryotwari pattas in favour of the petitioners way back on 13.08.1987 was challenged by the District Collector by filing a revision before the Director of Settlements. There was a delay of about two and half years. Initially, the delay was condoned and on a further revision filed by the petitioners, the order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Director of Settlements for fresh consideration and disposal. Through a detailed order, dated 12.05.2000, the Director of Settlements dismissed the application for condonation of delay and thereby, the revision itself. Thereafter, the matter landed before the 1st respondent in the form of a further revision. In case, the 1st respondent was convinced that there existed valid grounds for condonation of delay, he ought to have just expressed the view on that and condoned the delay. In such an event, the matter was required to be remanded to the Director of Settlements for disposal on merits. The 1st respondent however has chosen to undertake discussion on merits and expressed the view that the ryotwari pattas issued in favour of the petitioners are untenable in law. The 1st respondent figures at a very high level in the hierarchy of remedies. It is rather unfortunate that he failed to maintain the distinction between the condonation of delay and disposal of appeal on merits. He ought to have acted as role model to the authorities down in the hierarchy. After referring to the proceedings that have taken place up to that stage, the 1st respondent straight away proceeded to discuss the matter on merits. Not a word was said about the justification for presenting the appeal with such an enormous delay. The whole approach of the 1st respondent was defective. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. It is made clear that he shall confine his consideration only to the aspect of delay. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 21.04.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19977 of 2006 Date: 21.04.2009 JSU