SUKUL YASHODA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Korrapati Subbarao, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 6.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar argued the matter at length. He points out that the petitioner was given ryotwari Patta for Ac.1-19 cents situated at Tiruchanur Village, on 23/3/2013. However, the 7th respondent herein has filed an appeal which was entertained by the 3rd respondent and disposed of by orders dtd. 24/5/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal, if any, should be filed within 60 days from the date of order. Yet, without a delay condonation application or even a leave application the Appeal was filed and the same was entertained. He also points out that a specific objection was raised in the counter about this aspect of delay and the lack of delay condonation of application. Despite the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SubCollector passed the impugned order on the ground that the date of knowledge is the critical aspect for the computation of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two judgments relied upon by the Sub-Collector for coming to the conclusion are not under the provisions of this Act. They are inter se parties. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a serious objection about the power, competency and jurisdiction of the Sub-Collector to go into the complicated questions of fraud and decide the right/title etc., of the respondents in an Appeal under the Act in question. It is his contention that the Sub-Collector has gone beyond his jurisdiction and decided the matters, which are beyond the scope of the power. He points out that specific grounds have been taken in the Writ Petition with regard to this. Therefore, he prays for an order to set aside the impugned order dtd. 24/5/2017. He also relied upon the judgment reported in Veerappa v Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor,2002 (5) ALD 121. wherein it is held that the appellate authority is a creature of the statute, unless the power is specifically given to him he cannot condone the delay. He points out that this is also a decision rendered under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956.

(3.) For the 7th respondent, learned counsel Sri K. Subba Rao argues the matter. He points out that the 7th respondent is not a party to the original proceedings in which patta was granted. According to him the 7th respondent is claiming independent title to a part of the property. He asserted that the 7th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, she has a right in Appeal.