Decided on April 04,1969



- (1.)This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 17-2-1967 made in B, P. Mis, 84/67 of the Board of Revenue, confirming the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, made in R. P. No. 185/64 dated 21-9-1964 under the following circumstances.
(2.)The petitioners purchased for valuable consideration certain lands which are the subject matter of the writ petition of an extent of AC. 42. 13 cents situate in Kodavali village, Pithapuram taluk of East Godavari district, from Kirlampudi Sugar cane farms Limited, by a Registered sale deed in the year 1957. The petitioners were raising the crops therein and enjoying the same as ryoti lands. But in the snrvey and settlement, the land was treated as formaboke and entries were made as such in the village Adangals. In the village accounts, it was shown as tank poramboke, The village in question is a Zamin estate and was notified, abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act {Act XXIV of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioners appraocbed the Asst. Settlement Officer, Anakapalli for the issue of a ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act. The land is situated in the midst of Zeroiti patta lands and the water from the tank dug therein was used for irrigating the lands. The Deputy Tahsildar filed a counter and opposed the petition. The Settlement Officer, relying upon the material placed before him, directed issue of a ryotwari patta to the petitioners. This order of the Settlement Officer was made on 30-4-1963, Under the rules framed under section 57 (2)(d) of the Act, a revision petition' lies against an order of the Asst. Settlement Officer passed under sec. 11 of the Act, to the Director of Settlements, within 30 days of the date of the said orden But no such revision was filed within the time prescribed. After a lapse of long time, the Deputy Tahsildar, filed a revision petition on 16-6-64 before the Director of Settlements. Admittedly the provisions of Sec. 5. of the Limitation Act, appy to the revision petition, but no separate application Under section 5, was filed. Bat in the petition filed before the Director of settlements, towards the end, in the last para, it is mentioned as follows. "The delay in filing thia appeal is due to the fact of late receipt of orders of the Settlement Officer in this office. It may therefore be condoned-,. On 21-8-1964, the Director gava a notice of the filing of the revision petition filed under section 5 (2) of the Act. The Director of Settlements by an order dated 21-9-1964, set asid the order of the Settlement Officer and allowed the revision petition. But from the order of the Director, it does not appear that any material was placed before the said authority by the Deputy Taheildar which would justify the condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition, nor the order of the Director, discloses that he had considered the circumstances with regard to the delay in filing the revision and had condoned the delay. The petitioners thereafter carried the matter in revision to (he Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, merely confirmed the order of the Director and dismissed the revision. The petitioners now challenge the order of the Director and the Board of Revenue in this Writ Petition.
(3.)The train submission made by Sri K. Raghava Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Director of settlements could not have entertained the revision at all in as much as there was absolutely no material placed before him for condoning the delay in entertaining the revision petition In fact, the Director of Settlements, had not applied his mind to this aspect of the Case and that even otherwise, no separate application was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and that the Director of Settlements was therefore, not justified in straight away entertaining the revision and disposing of the same on merits. The further submission is that if the Director of Settlements had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision on merits, equally the Board of Revenue which purported to dispose of the case on merits cannot stand.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.