Balaji Medamalli, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.25600 of 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was allowed by setting aside order passed by the 3rd respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition.

3. Brief facts leading to file W.P.No.25600 of 2005 by the writ petitioners are that:

                  On an application made by one Malyavantam Srinivasa Charyulu, for grant of patta under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Inams Act'), in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.13.21 cents in Survey Nos.809, 926 and 927 of Gannavaram village and mandal, Krishna district, the authorities, after holding enquiry under the provisions of the said Inams Act, issued proceedings saying that the said person was entitled for a claim under the Inams Act. Pursuant thereto, the revenue authorities prepared adangal and also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.

                  Writ Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the son and brother's wife of the said Srinivasa Charyulu. Earlier Srinivasa Charyulu and, after his death, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for more than 45 years. Previously, in the year 1969, the 1st respondent in the writ petition filed O.A.No.141 of 1969 against the 1st petitioner's father under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 18 of 1966) (for short, 'the Endowments Act, 1966'), before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada, for production of records and for possession, and the same was dismissed on 16.12.1970. After a lapse of 35 years, the 1st respondent in the writ petition filed Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000 under Section 7(2) of the Inams Act, with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the 2 respondent. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition, by order dated 29.10.2005, condoned the delay. In the above background, the writ petition came to be filed, seeking writ of prohibition for restraining the 2nd respondent from adjudicating the Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000, and to set aside the order in I.A.No.1 of 2000.

4. After hearing learned counsel on either side and upon consideration of the material on record, statutory provisions, and the precedents cited, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, by an order dated 31.12.2014, holding that statute prescribes a limitation of 60 days for filing an appeal, whereas the 1st respondent filed the appeal under Section 7(2) of the Inams Act after an inordinate delay of nearly three decades without any valid or satisfactory explanation, and that the reasons assigned for condonation of delay were vague and insufficient. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ appeal is filed.

5. Heard Ms. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for appellant / respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri Mr. V. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

6. The contention of Appellant/respondent No.1 is that Appellant Temple is the titleholder of subject land, having acquired the same by way of an Inam granted by the then Zamindar to the Temple for performing services to the Deity. The subject land is registered in the name of the Deity in Resettlement Register (RSR) as well as the Inam Fair Register (IFR), and the same is evident from the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in the Writ Petition. The title deed in respect of subject land stands in the name of the Temple/Deity vide T.D.No.1387, and an entry was also made in the Section 38 Register dated 10.10.1938, all solidifying the title of the Temple over subject land. It is further contended that since writ petitioners claim right over the subject land on the basis of Ryotwari pattas alleged to have been obtained subsequent to the Estates Abolition Act, the respondent No.1 Temple preferred an appeal before the RDO challenging the said pattas, in Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000. Though the said appeal was preferred after a delay of nearly three decades, the delay was condoned by the RDO vide order dated 29.10.2005, primarily on the reason that the statutory procedure prescribed for the grant of the alleged Ryotwari pattas had not been not followed.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, writ petitioners preferred W.P.No.25600 of 2005, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.12.2014, holding that the delay cannot not be condoned and, consequently, the appeal cannot be adjudicated by the RDO. Assailing the said order, the respondent No.1 has preferred the present appeal, contending that there was, in fact, no delay in preferring the appeal and that, even if there is a delay, the same ought to have been condoned in the interest of substantial justice and for protecting the valuable pre-abolition rights of the Temple. It is further contended that in view of the amended Act 16 of 2013, even if the alleged pattas are valid and genuine, the same are liable to be considered as null and void. Since the very validity of the alleged pattas is under challenge, the question of delay cannot be an impediment or bar for adjudicating the said issue.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4/Writ petitioners submitted that one Malyavantam Srinivasacharyulu made an application for grant of Ryotwari patta under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 1956, in respect of an extent of Ac.13.21 cents in Sy.Nos.809, 926 and 927 of Gannavaram village and Mandal, Krishna District. Upon enquiry under the provisions of the Inams Act, the competent authority held that the said individual was entitled to the grant of patta. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and adangals under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act. For more than 45 years, the said Srinivasacharyulu and his successors-in-interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. In the year 1969, the Executive Officers of the Temple filed O.A.No.141 of 1969 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada, against M.Srinivasacharyulu (father of the writ petitioner No.1) under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, for production of certain records and recovery of possession of the subject property. The said application was duly enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who being a statutory authority, adjudicated upon the rights of the parties, and dismissed the said appeal on 16.12.1970 holding that as per the evidence, the respondent therein (father of writ petitioner No.1) was not at all the Managing Committee at any point of time as trustee cannot be expected to be in possession of the accounts shown in A schedule and the records shown in B schedule, and further held that it is seen from the accounts Ex.R1 that Narayanacharyulu and the respondent (father of writ petitioner No.1) are the pattadars and further concluded that previously, the lands were held by the institution as contended were granted in favour of the Archakas; and in such a case, the appeal should have been filed by the institution to get the judgment set aside; and at present, they stand as personal properties of the respondent (father of writ petitioner No.1) and others, as such, the petitioner (respondent No.1 Temple) is not entitled to recover possession.

9. Learned counsel for writ petitioners further submitted that aforesaid order dated 16.12.1970 was never challenged and remained unassailed for nearly three decades, until the filing of Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000. The said appeal was preferred under section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition Act r/w 13 of the rules framed under the said act, questioning the grant of Ryotwari pattas in favour of the writ petitioners. In spite of such inordinate delay, no sufficient or cogent reasons were assigned for seeking condonation of the delay. Mere filing of an appeal, without filing any accompanying application seeking condonation of such inordinate delay, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have allowed the appeal. Though learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that no Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the writ petitioners, and therefore, the corresponding entries in the revenue records were without basis, the record reflects that appeal was filed specifically challenging the alleged grant of Ryotwari patta in favour of the respondents and that too after suffering the proceedings against the respondent No.1/Temple before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A.No.141 of 1969, wherein the property was specifically held to be personal properties of the father of writ petitioner No.1 and others. Respondent No.1 Temple cannot now agitate after long lapse of more than 30 years. As per provisions under the Inams Abolition Act, any person aggrieved by grant of the Ryotwari patta, the appeal would lie under section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act within a period of sixty days and that there being any proper explanation for such delay and having sought for the similar relief for possession of the subject property as long as back in the year 1969 itself, the respondent No.1 Temple cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same under the present appeal.

10. Learned Single Judge of this Court, having gone through the record and relevant provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, and particularly, section 7(2) thereof, as well as the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in I.A.No.1 of 2000 in Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000, and consequently held that respondent No.2 cannot proceed with further adjudication of the said Inam Appeal.

11. Upon hearing submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also writ petitioners and upon perusing the record, learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 in detail and framed the point for consideration that whether respondent No.2 is justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and proceeding further with the process of adjudicating of the Inam Appeal filed by respondent No.1 under the provisions of section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act. While considering the said issue, learned Single Judge held that in O.A.No.141 of 1969 filed against the father of writ petitioner No.1 under section 93 of the Endowments Act, 1966, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, by order dated 16.12.1970, held that proper remedy for the Executive Officer to recover the lands, is the Civil Court or the Revenue Court, and they cannot be recovered under section 93 of the Endowments Act.

12. In the above order, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments also observed that it was for the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. Despite a lapse of nearly three decades, respondent No.1 had not taken any steps either to approach the competent Civil Court or to initiate any other proceedings as contemplated in the said order. Instead, respondent No.1 approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 7(2) of the Inams Act against Srinivasacharyulu, father of the writ petitioner No.1, by filing I.A.No.1 of 2005 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, even without indicating the delay. Except stating that there was no bad intention in not preferring the appeal earlier, no sufficient or valid reason was assigned for the delay. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

13. Learned Single Judge, while considering the provisions under section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, observed that it is obligatory on the part of the person aggrieved to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of grant of Ryotwari patta; respondent No.1 Temple, having approached the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments long back in the year 1969 and suffered an order dated 16.12.1970, failed to assign any reason for not taking further steps pursuant to the said order.

14. Learned Single Judge also considered the judgments relied upon by either side and, after taking into consideration section 143 of the Endowments Act, 1987, held that the said provision of law deals with a claim of vesting of the Endowments property in the individual and the effect of law of limitation, but not with the present contingency of filing of an appeal under the provisions of the Inams Act. The provision imposes a prohibition on individuals to claim ownership in the Endowments property on the ground of expiry of period of limitation i.e., plea of adverse possession is not available in respect of Endowment properties. Learned Single Judge, therefore, concluded that the scope, ambit and parameters of the applicability of the said provision are different and cannot be extended to the contingencies of the present nature.

15. That apart, having approached the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in the year 1969 and suffered the order dated 16.12.1970, respondent No.1 Temple failed to explain the inordinate delay in preferring the Inam Appeal under Section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on section 143 of the Endowments Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer without first satisfying the requirement of condonation of such inordinate delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is not open to the respondent No.1 to contend that the appeal itself before the RDO is maintainable under law. Accordingly, learned Single Judge, upon considering the aforesaid findings, allowed the Writ Petition, and set aside the order dated 29.10.2005 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2000 in Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000 and further held that the RDO cannot proceed further for adjudication of the appeal filed under section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act in Inam Appeal No.1 of 2000.

16. As discussed above, and upon considering the material on record, it is evident that respondent No.1 Temple filed O.A.No.141 of 1969 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, which was dismissed by order dated 16.12.1970, recording that the Temple has to initiate proceedings before the competent Civil Court for declaration or any other proceedings in terms before the revenue court and further held that the property was in possession of the unofficial respondents, who were shown as Ryotwari pattadars. Having suffered the said order, respondent No.1 Temple, after a lapse of nearly three decades, approached the RDO under section 7(2) of the Inams Aboliton Act and filed an application for condonation of delay without even specifying the period of delay. The RDO, nevertheless, allowed the application and proceeded to entertain the Inam Appeal.

17. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would further submit that as writ petitioners failed to produce the Inam pattas granted in their favour, they are not entitled to claim any benefit under the Inams Abolition Act, and that the revenue records were mutated in their favour without there being any documentary evidence evidencing the grant of such pattas. In this connection, it is apt to mention here that the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 Temple before the RDO under section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, wherein, the appeal itself speaks that it was filed against the grant of Ryotwari patta in favour of the father of the writ petitioner No.1. That part, the findings recorded in O.A.No.141 of 1969 also clearly establish that the father of the writ petitioner No.1 was recorded as a pattadar. Having approached the RDO, after a lapse of nearly three decades, challenging the patta granted in favour of writ petitioners, respondent No.1 Temple cannot now contend that no patta was issued in their favour. If no patta had been granted, there was no basis for filing such an appeal before the RDO under section 7(2) of the Inans Abolition Act. Therefore, the said contention cannot be countenanced.

18. In view of the observations made above, we are of the considered view that the respondent No.1 Temple has miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of nearly 30 years in preferring the appeal. Having itself agitated the grant of Ryotwari patta by filing an appeal before the RDO under Section 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, respondent No.1 Temple cannot now turn around and contend that no such patta was ever granted. Learned Single Judge, having elaborately dealt with all the contentions of the parties, recorded specific findings thereon, as stated above. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.