N RANGANAYAKULU Vs. SOMIREDDY VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of a common order of the Collector. Since they raise common questions, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter called "the Act" on 24th September, 1962 alleging inter alia that Bismilla Bi and her two sons proposed to sell 13 acres of land in his favour. A similar application was filed by the vendors also. These applications were filed on 24th September, 1962. Bismilla Bi and her one son Rashid Mirza, however, seem to have changed their mind and took exception to the grant of permission in favour of the petitioner. They filed an objection petition on 5th October, 1962. Mohammad Mirza, the other son of Bismilla Bi, also likewise filed objections on 17th September, 1963. The 13 acres for which permission was sought included 6 acres ofland which Bismilla Bi and her two sons had already agreed to sell to Seshagiri Rao and Somireddi Veeraiah. Somireddi Veeraiah also filed an objection that since permission was already accorded in his favour in regard to 6 acres of land on the petition filed by Bismilla Bi, Rashid Mirza and Mohammad Mirza, no second permission in regard to the same land can be granted on the application of these vendors in favour of the petitioner before me. The Tahsildar ultimately accepted the objections raised by Somireddi Veeraiah, and Bismilla Bi, Rashid Mirza and Mohammad Mirza and granted permission to sell only 7 acres of land to the vendors in favour of the petitioners before me. This order of the Tahsildar was passed on 23rd December, 1963. The petitioner aggrieved with that order of the Tahsildar preferred an appeal to the Collector. The vendors did not prefer any appeal to the Collector. The vendors did not prefer any appeal to the Collector in so far as the grant of permission for 7 acres was concerned. Obviously the petitioner, the proposed vendee, wanted the Collector to accord sanction for all the 13 acres. The respondents contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was time-barred. Curiously, the Collector set aside the order of the Tahsildar in toto and remanded the case to him for fresh disposal mainly on the ground that since the vendor hr.d stated that they never filed any application for grant of permission in favour of the petitioner before the Tahsildar, the Collector wanted that fact to be ascertained. It is this view of the Collector that is now challenged in C.R.P. No. 1219 of 1965 by Somireddi Veeraiah, and C.R.P. No. 2168 of 1964 by N. Ranganayakulu. Somireddi Veeraiah's revision petition is mainly for the purpose of declaring that the appeal filed by N. Ranganayakulu before the Collector was time-barred. I have therefore heard these two revision petitions together.

(3.) Taking the question of limitation first, it is common ground that the Tahsildar passed the order on 23rd December, 1963. The petitioner, that is to say, N. Ranganayakulu, filed a copy application on 9th January, 1964. He deposited the necessary copy stamps on the same day. The copy also was prepared on the same day. He however obtained it from the office on 24th January, 1964, and filed the appeal before the Collector on 24th February, 1964. Under section 89 of the Act 60 days' time is prescribed for preferring the appeal to the Collector from an order passed by the Tahsildar. If 9th January, 1964, that is to say, one day, is excluded from the computation of period which the petitioner had to spend in obtaining certified copy of the order against which he wanted to appeal, admittedly the appeal is time.barred by one day. It was however argued by Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the column in regard to preparation of the copy is not the column for stating that the copy was ready on that date.