PRATAP REDDY Vs. R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of limitation under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") read with Sec. 93 of the Act and Rule 4 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh ( Telangana Area) protected Tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973, for short "the Rules".

(2.) The petitioner before me is the landholder while respondents 2 and 3 claim to be protected tenants, each in respect of 30 guntas of land. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders with regard to the final list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land is transferred under Sec. 38-E of the Act on 31-3-1975. Before the preparation of said final list, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules calling for objections from the landholders. There is no dispute before me that the provisional list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land was to be transferred was prepared under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules in Form-I on 18-11-74. Thereafter Rule 4 (2) of the Rules requires that a copy of the provisional list should be published by affixture on notice board of the village chavadi or at any other conspicuous place in the village and by beat of torn tom. The question whether this part of the Rule was complied with or not is a matter which does not arise in this revision but will be a matter which has to be decided by the appellate authority in the event of the petitioner satisfying me that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by time.

(3.) Under Section 91 of the Act, a revision lies to the High Court against an order passed by the appellate authority. Section 91 of the Act, however, provides that an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by the Collector on the following grounds: (a) that the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) that the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or, (c) in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity. Section 93 of the Act provides :