RUDRARAJU JANAKIRAMA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the declarant is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry. allowing I.A. No. 2269 of 1976 and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal L. R. A. No. 937 of 1977.

(2.) As per the affidavit of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Amalapuram, filed in support of the abovesaid I. A. he received the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal on 10th October, 1976 and as per the Standing Instructions he sent the same to the District Land Reforms Officer, Kakinada, for scrutiny and for further steps in the matter. He received instructions from the office of the Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada on 7th December. 1976 to prefer appeal and the appeal was preferred on 10th December, 1976. There was absolutely no delay on the part of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, in taking steps to prefer the appeal. On the third day after receiving instructions, he saw to it that the appeal was filed. The entire delay in this case has occurred after the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal was communicated by the Authorised Officer to the District Land Reforms Officer, Kakinada, as per the Standing Instructions. Either the District Land Reforms Officer or the Collector, East Godavari, delayed the matter for a period of one month and nineteen days. What transpired during this long period is not clear from the affidavit. The period for preferring an appeal as laid down under section 20 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act is thirty days. Yet those two officers kept the matter with them for 49 days without issuing the necessary instructions to prefer an appeal. Apart from the fact there is no warrant for this inordinate delay, it is seen that the District Land Reforms Officer and the Office of the Collector are not the authorities that are required to examine the question whether an appeal should be preferred. Neither the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act nor the Rules made thereunder envisage a reference of these matters by the Authorised Officer to any of these authorities for the purpose of preferring an appeal to the Appellate Tribunals. If at all there are any administrative instructions, they would, in all probability, have been issued with a view to expedite the matters in preferring appeals and not to delay them. As these authorities are not the authorities who are required to be consulted under the Act, any time spent in consulting them or seeking their instructions in the matter of preferring an appeal cannot be deemed to be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The affidavit states that due to administrative reasons, the decisions for preferring an appeal could not be taken within the prescribed time by the concerned authority. This Court has repeatedly laid down that any such administrative delay does not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning the delay in preferring appeals : vide Revenue Divisional Officer v. T. Lakshminarayana and Special Deputy Collector v. Turab Yar Jung As held by me in C R. P. No. 736 of 1976 dated 9th November, 1976, section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to appeals and revisions filed under the Act. However, inasmuch as sufficient cause has not been shown for preferring the appeal 23 days beyond the period of limitation, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have rejected the petition for conIdonation of delay.

(3.) It is however argued by the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Sardar Ali Khan, that although a petition for condonation of delay was filed, in fact no period of limitation is prescribed for filing appeals on behalf of the Government against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. In this behalf he relies upon sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act which reads as follows: 20 (5). Where the Government are aggrieved by an order passed by the Tribunal or the Revenue Divisional Officer, they may file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against that order.