JUDGMENT (B Prakash Rao, J) Heard the learned Advocate General on behalf of the writ appellants and petitioners in the applications and Mr.M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents 1 to 5, who were the petitioners in the Writ. The main appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, on 30.7.2009 at the instance of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District ( an Appellate Authority under A.P. (TA) Inams Abolition Act) 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) Hyderabad, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Inams Tribunal) under the said Act, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy district and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy, aggrieved against the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W P No.11058 of 2001 dated 16th September, 2008, along with the appeal, an application in WAMP No. 2011 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 242 days in filing the appeal is filed. Briefly, the facts in the backdrop which gave raise to the main proceedings are, that in the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein (herein after referred as the writ petitioner), who were claiming Occupancy Rights as Kabiz-e-Kadim as occupant under Section 5 of the Said Act assailed the correctness of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, (Inams Tribunal), Chevella, Ranga Reddy district dated 25.10.1997, and as confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy/Appellate Authority, vide proceedings No.F1/1402/98 dated 9.4.2001. Shorn of the details on merits, it would suffice to note that the claim of the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.194/8, admeasuring to Ac.5.10 gts, of Begumpet was rejected by both the authorities on the ground that the land is not an agricultural since it is a poultry. This was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the provisions, in section 2 (1) (a) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 defining ‘agriculture’ as including ‘poultry farming and stock breeding’ and respondents/writ petitioners admittedly being in possession under a lease for the purpose of running such poultry farm on the date of vesting, allowed the writ petition holding that the respondents come well within the parameters, and therefore entitled to the Occupancy Rights certificate for the said land. Assailing the said orders, this appeal has been filed by the aforesaid three authorities viz., Joint Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, disputing amongst other grounds that ‘whether the poultry farm would constitute as agriculture or not and asserting that it is a non-agricultural land, and therefore granting Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 5 of the Act, does not arise. These two authorities are arrayed as appellants 1 and 2 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district is arrayed as the appellant no.3 in the present appeal. Initially, when the matter has come up in the said application filed by the appellants in WAMP Nos. 2011 and 2240 of 2009, one seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and along with another to bring the Legal Representatives of respondent no.2, who died later, on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, which was sworn to by Mr.B.V.Ratna Kumar/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division himself, apart from referring to the merits, asserted that the respondents/writ petitioners are not entitled to such Occupancy Rights Certificate supporting the orders passed initially on 25.10.1997 by itself as a tribunal and the same being confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, the appellant no.1. As regards reasons, the only relevant paragraph is para 7 of the affidavit, which for convenience sake is extracted below, which reads as follows; “Para.7. I submit that the order of this Hon’ble Court in W P No. 11058 of 2001 was received on 17.11.2008. Thereafter, the file has been processed and a report has been called for from the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Balanagar on 18.12.2008. He submitted a detailed report in which the above facts have been revealed with regard to the nature of the land and the transactions affected in the year 1965. On verification of the entire record, this respondent preferred the present writ appeal before this Hon’ble Court. There is a delay of 242 days in filing the writ appeal and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above. On verification of the entire record, this respondent preferred the present writ appeal before this Hon’ble Court. There is a delay of 242 days in filing the writ appeal and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above. If the delay is not condoned, the petitioners herein will be put to untold hardship.” Thus, in nut shell, the only reason is that the order in the main writ petition allowing the writ dated 16th September, 2008 was received on 17.11.2008 and thereafter the file has been processed and report is called for from the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Balanagar on 18.12.2008 and on receipt of the detailed report, the real facts have been revealed in regard to the nature of land and transaction affected in the year 1965, and therefore, the delay is caused in filing the appeal which is neither wilful nor wanton and further stating that if the delay is not condoned, the petitioners/appellants will be put to untold hardship, hence sought for condonation of the same. In WAMP No. 2240 of 2009, the affidavit is sworn by the very same officer i.e., Mr B.V.Ratna Kumar/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, (primary tribunal) seeking to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased second respondent one of the writ petitioner, wherein he states that when the application for condonation of delay was listed before this Court on 12.8.2009, the respondents/writ petitioners have taken time for filing counter i.e., WAMP No.2011 of 2009, and further stated that as on the date of disposal of the writ petition an application to bring the Legal Representatives of said deceased was pending but the same was not ordered, therefore it is not reflected in the cause title, and thereupon the respondents/writ petitioners’ counsel addressed a letter to the Registrar on 6.11.2008, an amendment was ordered on 6.11.2008 and thereafter yet amended copy has not been received by them. Therefore, the said Legal Representatives of the deceased/second respondent needs to be added. Therefore, the said Legal Representatives of the deceased/second respondent needs to be added. In the counter affidavit filed in WAMP No.2011 of 2009 on behalf of the respondents, which is sworn in by Mr P.V.Narasimha Rao/first respondent herein, it has been stated that there is no valid and sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay stating that the copy of order of the learned Single Judge in W P No. 11058 of 2001 was made available to the second respondent /appellant herein on 20.10.2008 by them to the authorities and they were duly informed of the orders. Hence, they are fully having knowledge of the orders. Hence, it is well within the knowledge of the respondents/appellants herein much earlier than the date as shown by them i.e.,17.11.2008, which cannot be accepted. The allegation as regards processing of the file is not correct and denied. There is unreasonable delay on their part without any sufficient cause. That apart, on behalf of the respondents various other allegations have been made on merits referring to various documents and proceedings in support of their claim for entitlement for Occupancy Rights. Further it has been asserted that before the learned Single Judge all along no counter affidavit has been filed by the appellants herein in the Writ Petition to raise any plea or objection or even the grounds as sought to be urged in the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application on merits, the objections are being made for the first time. Therefore, there are no merits or justification and the appellants are not entitled to seek any indulgence from this Court. This Court having noticed that the appellants/petitioners in Miscellaneous Applications are no other than the tribunals themselves, who have decided the case in regard to the entitlement of Occupancy Rights, being a quasi judicial authorities, a query was raised as to how they can challenge by any remedy and support their own orders. Therefore this Court, as per orders dated 22.9.2009 sought to hear on the maintainability, and accordingly, notice was given to learned Advocate General. Therefore this Court, as per orders dated 22.9.2009 sought to hear on the maintainability, and accordingly, notice was given to learned Advocate General. The said order reads… “Having heard the counsel on either side and especially in a situation, where the appellants herein who are none other than the competent authorities, quasi judicial tribunals, under the Inams Abolition Act and Inams Tribunal have any locus or right in respect of the disputes and further there being no opposition on the part of the Inamdar in regard to the claims made by the respondents, it is felt desirable that learned Advocate General be heard in the matter….” After hearing the matter again, the appellants herein have come up with two other applications in WAMP No. 2318 and 2575 of 2009. In WAMP No. 2318 of 2009, which is filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code on 2.9.2009 seeking leave to file additional affidavit explaining the delay in presenting the appeal, which is sworn to by the very same officer Mr B.V.Ratna Kumar/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division, who stated on oath that certain events which have happened after receipt of the judgment after December, 2008 have not been mentioned in affidavit filed in support of WAMP No. 2011 of 2009 and goes on to state that after receipt of the judgment, report has been called for and the report has been submitted by the Tahsildar, Balanagar in second week of December,2008 and he has been appointed as Returning Officer of 51 Rajendranagar Assembly Constituency to conduct general elections and the entire revenue staff has been moved for the said elections and a notification was issued by the Election Commission to conduct the elections. Thus, from December, 2008 till May 2009 entire staff was busy in the elections. The relevant portion at para 2 of the affidavit, reads as under; “On receipt of this judgment of this Hon’ble Court, a report has been called from the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar of Balanagar on the present status of the land. Thereafter, a report has been submitted by the Tahsildar, Balanagar in the 2nd week of December, 2008. I submit that I have been appointed as Returning Officer of 51 Rajendranagar Assemby Constituency to conduct general elections. The entire revenue staff has been drafted in the pre and post election process of general elections of 2009 both house of the people and legislative assembly. I submit that I have been appointed as Returning Officer of 51 Rajendranagar Assemby Constituency to conduct general elections. The entire revenue staff has been drafted in the pre and post election process of general elections of 2009 both house of the people and legislative assembly. In view of the election duty the entire revenue staff was busy right from the enrolment of votes, its draft and final publication. Thereafter a notification has been issued by the Election Commission of India to conduct the election. Thus, from December, 2008 till end of May, 2009 the entire revenue staff was busy in the general elections. Thus, the file could not be processed during the said period.” Further in para 3 referring to the contempt case filed by respondents/petitioners in CC No. 913 of 2009, which reads as follows; “I submit with respect basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Balanagar and in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal 975 of 2002 dated 1.10.2002 a decision was taken to issue a memo to the writ petitioner to approach the Special Tribunal for redressal of his grievance on 28.5.2009. In pursuance of the said decision an endorsement was issued in Memo No.L/4838/2008 dated 30.5.2009 to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed C C No. 913 of 2009 against me before this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Single Judge pointed out that issuing memo is improper. Therefore I have been advised by the Government Pleader to withdraw the said memo. Accordingly, I have withdrawn the said memo on 25.7.2009 and taken a decision to file a Writ Appeal against the said judgment in W P No.11058 of 2001 and accordingly, the writ appeal was filed on 30.7.2009. Thus, the delay of 242 days occurred in filing the writ appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton. But for the reasons stated above, if the delay is not condoned the petitioner herein would be put to untold hardship.” Therefore it is stated that the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. Thus, the delay of 242 days occurred in filing the writ appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton. But for the reasons stated above, if the delay is not condoned the petitioner herein would be put to untold hardship.” Therefore it is stated that the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. Again in the affidavit filed in WAMP No. 2575 of 2009 which has been filed by the State of A P, represented by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy as a proposed appellant and by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district as second petitioner seeking to add the State of A P represented by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to be added and transposing the said appellants 1 and 2 namely the authorities, the Inams Tribunal and appellate authority as respondents 15 and 16 in the appeal and petitions. In support of this application, an affidavit was sworn to by Sri M Dana Kishore/ Collector, Ranga Reddy district on 13th October, 2009 and the petition having been filed on 14th October, 2009 it is stated in paras 3 to 5 which reads as under; “It is submitted that due to the orders passed by Appellants 1 and 2 the state was vested with the title to the property in dispute. The first respondent herein who is the writ petitioner did not make the State as a party to the above writ petition. The defect continued even in the writ appeal, though the state is a party being adversely affected by the writ petition. It is submitted that it has been time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing him’ ( 2009 (11) SCALE 766 ) and since the appellants 1 and 2 who are quasi judicial authorities cannot prefer an appeal against the decision rendered by them, in the interests of justice it is essential that the State be made a party to the writ appeal. It is submitted that an objection was raised as to locus standi of the appellants to maintain the appeal at the time of hearing. The said objection was never raised at the time of admission or thereafter. It is submitted that an objection was raised as to locus standi of the appellants to maintain the appeal at the time of hearing. The said objection was never raised at the time of admission or thereafter. The interests of justice require that the appellant be permitted to make necessary amendments including amending the cause title, the same is not barred in any way as the Supreme Court has established that the transposition of parties in permissible even at the appellate stage ( AIR 1958 SC 394 ) Therefore, the present application is filed to amend the cause title transposing appellants 1 and 2 as respondents 15 and 16 and also substituting the State of A P rep by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District as first appellant, with leave of this Hon’ble Court.” The case of the petitioners is that it is the writ petitioner, who should be held responsible for not impleading the State and this objection was not raised at any time earlier during pendency of the Writ proceedings or thereafter. Therefore he seeks to come on record by appropriate transposition of the appellants, as other respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the writ petitioners which has been sworn by first respondent Mr P.V.Narasimha in W A M P No. 2575 of 2009, it is stated that the Joint Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, are quasi judicial authorities under the provisions of A P (TA) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 who decided the disputes and therefore they are not competent to file the appeal themselves or on behalf of the State Government, relying on the decision reported in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate and Another 2007 (8) SCC 254 , the appeal is thus not maintainable. Hence, necessarily if at-all the State of A P is aggrieved it has to file a fresh appeal independently. It is further stated that there is no defect in filing the writ petition without impleading the State of A P since the Writ sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for Writ of Certiorari, hence the authorities under the Act alone who decided alone would have to be impleaded. It is further stated that there is no defect in filing the writ petition without impleading the State of A P since the Writ sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for Writ of Certiorari, hence the authorities under the Act alone who decided alone would have to be impleaded. No claim has been made at any point of time during the pendency of the writ petition or at any time earlier also on behalf of State and the same was disposed of. Further, the said writ petition was contested by appearance of the Government Pleader for Revenue and his Assistant Government Pleader, who have been appointed by the State. Therefore it is not open for them to contend on the principle that there is any order passed without hearing them hence the application is liable to be dismissed. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners/appellants who contended that it is only the respondents/writ petitioner who had to take blame for not impleading the State and they cannot take advantage on their own lapse. He further submitted that even though no counter affidavit has been filed nor any steps are taken to get the State impleaded. Since substantive properties are involved and the main question being as to the entitlement of the respondents for the occupancy rights, the case was disposed without the State being impleaded whose interests are more adversely affected, hence necessarily the appeal has to be treated as if filed by the State representing through its District Collector, and allow the application in WPMP No. 2575 of 2009 and give an opportunity. Consequently, the said appellants can be relegated to by transposition as respondents in the appeal. Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners opposing the move as a belated, strenuously contended by objecting to the aforesaid submissions and the above applications, stating that the entire procedure adopted is totally misconceived and unsustainable. Further, there being no counter affidavit nor any serious contest by way of pleadings much less without objections by the State in any format, and it is not open for the appellants as shown or even the State to pursue the appeal at this late hour. Further, there being no counter affidavit nor any serious contest by way of pleadings much less without objections by the State in any format, and it is not open for the appellants as shown or even the State to pursue the appeal at this late hour. Further, it has been contended that immediately after disposal of the writ petition, the order was duly communicated and it is only after filing of the Contempt Case, the present appeal is filed, which lacks bona fides and the merits. After considering the submissions made from both sides and on perusal of the material, the point which boils down for consideration is as to whether the appeal as has been filed and framed by the appellants viz., the Joint Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer concerned is maintainable and whether the State can come on record later to pursue the same as appellants and for transposition of those appellants as respondents in the appeal. From the above checkered events, undisputedly, the writ has been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein assailing the orders rejecting their claim for occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the said Act by the authorities who have been constituted under the provisions of the A P (TA) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The initial rejection was by the Revenue Divisional officer as Inams Tribunal, in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the said Act and subsequent order in appeal is by the Joint Collector as appellate authority under Section 24 of the said Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer added in the writ petition as third respondent. The claim of the writ petitioners was that having regard to the nature of the land, though used as a poultry, it being an agricultural land, and in view of their occupation on the date of vesting are entitled to Occupancy Rights. Whereas both the authorities viz., Joint Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer viz., appellants 1 and 2 have rejected the case erroneously on the ground that poultry farming does not constitute agriculture purpose, hence not an agricultural land. Whereas both the authorities viz., Joint Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer viz., appellants 1 and 2 have rejected the case erroneously on the ground that poultry farming does not constitute agriculture purpose, hence not an agricultural land. Learned single Judge by considering various provisions of the Act and the other provisions as contained in the Land Revenue Act and A.P.(TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Act, 1950 and Hyderabad Atiyat Enquities Act, 1352 Fasli and Rules made therein held that the definition of an agriculture includes poultry farming and stock breeding as well, hence it constitutes as an agricultural land and allowed the writ petition. Admittedly, the appellants 1 and 2 are the authorities under the said Act, who have dwelled into and considered the case on merits and passed the orders rejecting the claim as a quasi judicial authorities, who are competent to decide all such disputes originally and on appeal. Therefore, it involves substantial rights of the parties in the substantive properties as to entitlement for benefits accruing under the special legislation, hence,they themselves could not have any locus to assail the orders of this Court, if their orders are set aside. Necessarily, it is the State if any rights are claimed, who alone has to pursue and contest the claim before both the said authorities as well, which is wholly lacking in this case without any demur on their part. No objection was raised nor any claim is put forth at any time earlier. Even though the said writ petition was filed on 6-6-2001 and ultimately disposed of on 16th September, 2008 almost after about 7 to 8 years, no counter affidavit has been filed nor any contest is made to the claim of the respondents. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of any of the appellants for such lapse which itself is fatal. No sufficient reason is being shown as to why the counter affidavit has not been filed and the steps are not taken to oppose the claim of the writ petitioners by seeking to implead the State. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of any of the appellants for such lapse which itself is fatal. No sufficient reason is being shown as to why the counter affidavit has not been filed and the steps are not taken to oppose the claim of the writ petitioners by seeking to implead the State. Apparently, it is only after disposal of the writ petition and receipt of the order twice the second appellant/Revenue Divisional Officer himself, called for report and on receipt thereof only, the present proceedings have been initiated as could be evident from the very allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the above applications including the application seeking condonation of delay in WPMP No. 2011 of 2009. There is no attempt on the part of the appropriate authorities representing the State to take any steps or pursue the matter nor to contest the claim by due pleadings on behalf of the State with a clear and categorical assertion of its right and title. Therefore, even in the affidavit filed in the application for condonation of delay, except referring to such communication and waiting till the report is filed, no other reason is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners. Being themselves a non-judicial bodies under the said Act, they themselves could not possibly have taken up case of the State. That apart in the later application filed in WPMP No. 2318 of 2009 once again apart from reiterating the very same reason there is added fervour to show as to his involvement in the busy schedule due to elections. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the authorities who can duly represent the State under the law are silent and they did not come out with any specific case and absolutely there is no proper persuasion all along from the inception at any time or after filing of the writ petition and service of Rule nisi notice by any of the three appellants in the Writ Petition. Coming to the aspect whether the appellants 1 to 3 who have filed the original appeal have any locus, admittedly the appellants 1 and 2 are the quasi judicial bodies constituted and appointed under the provisions of the said Act, as primary and appellate authorities, under Sections 10 and 24 of the Act respectively. Coming to the aspect whether the appellants 1 to 3 who have filed the original appeal have any locus, admittedly the appellants 1 and 2 are the quasi judicial bodies constituted and appointed under the provisions of the said Act, as primary and appellate authorities, under Sections 10 and 24 of the Act respectively. In fact, the appellant himself describes as Appellate Authority and respondent no.2 describes himself as Inams Tribunal in the appeal. It is unknown to law, as to how any Court, Tribunal or Authority who is quasi judicial body and who decides a dispute on merits and passed the orders can be said to be an aggrieved party and support its own orders. When the matter has come up for admission of the writ appeal, on the objection taken and notice being given, the learned Advocate General has fairly submitted that the appeal as it is at their instance is not maintainable. It is only thereafter, the applications in WAMP Nos. 2011, 2240, 2318 and 2575 of 2009 were filed. For availing any remedy of an appeal, necessarily it follows that the appellant must be an aggrieved person. The meaning of ‘aggrieved’ as per Law Lexicon dictionary, reads as, “Aggrieved:--A term of very ancient origin, appearing on the Statute Roll of 1363: “et outré le dit Roy voet que si nul se sent grevez, mette avant sa petition en ce Parlement et il en avera convenable respons:, (vide 1 Cliff. 272). For purposes of ascertaining rights of appeal, any person who is in any sense a party to a legal proceeding is “aggrieved” by a wrong decision with regard to the proceeding.” Therefore, he should be one, whose interests are adversely affected adjudication and suffered a legal grievance, depriving him of something, which he has right to demand. He is not a party to the lis. Except presiding over as a Judge and conduct the judicial process by following the basic tenets of the principles of natural justice in process of decision making, he has no role to step in the shoes of a party to a dispute. For him, both or all sides of dispute are equal and should be treated equal and unbiased. He cannot have or show any semblance of an interest in the subject matter. Or less, if he does, he should quit or recuse. For him, both or all sides of dispute are equal and should be treated equal and unbiased. He cannot have or show any semblance of an interest in the subject matter. Or less, if he does, he should quit or recuse. He may uphold case of one side rejecting other. All decisions are subject to appeals provided under the statute and within the permissive core of judicial review. Therefore, they cannot style or come forward either to claim any right on behalf of State or avail legal remedies. In, the District Collector, Srikakulam and Others Vs. Bagathi Krishna Rao and Another (2010) 6 SCC 427 considering an appeal which has been filed by the District Collector, Mandal Revenue Officer and District Forest Officer as against the judgment and decrees obtained by the plaintiff therein, it was held that the same is not maintainable, though the State is necessary party. Therefore, reiterating the very same principle it can safely be said that the appeal as has been filed by these very authorities who sat on the controversy, without the State pursuing the matter by themselves in the manner as provided under the law especially as provided for under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Article 300 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Coming to the other applications filed in WPMP Nos. 2575 of 2009 where the petitioners sought to implead the State through District Collector, Ranga Reddy as appellant and transposing the statutory bodies as respondents 5 and 6. Unfortunately, even the affidavit filed in support of the said application by the Collector, Ranga Reddy district is as vague as any thing, instead of coming out with a specific case of title or the ingredients and details required to buttress its necessity and how the interest of the State exists or suffered. There is no explanation or any reason in the said affidavit as well, as to why the matter has not been pursued when the writ petition was pending before the learned single Judge all along or even earlier, during the pendency of the proceedings before both the authorities, nor as to why no steps could possibly be taken to come on record. Except mentioning that no adverse order should be passed without hearing the State, and no other reason has been mentioned. How it is adverse, it should be spelt out. Except mentioning that no adverse order should be passed without hearing the State, and no other reason has been mentioned. How it is adverse, it should be spelt out. What exactly the claim of State represents should be stated. As rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, the writ being for a Certiorari, necessarily it is only the authorities who have passed the orders have to be arrayed as parties but not otherwise to go on searching for all such objectors or even the State. If really the State has a title or right itself or any objection for grant of occupancy certificate, proper steps could have been taken by filing proper pleadings including a counter affidavit. There is total lull and silence on the part of its responsible officers. Further the State cannot say that it is not aware of those proceedings, inasmuch as it is only the authorities who have been constituted as Tribunal has passed the orders. Further the Mandal Revenue officer, who is a ground level responsible officer in the revenue administration, who is added as third respondent and who is appellant no.3 has not come forward with any explanation in this regard as to why there is any silence on his part. Yet, he could not possible represent the State, in the manner as required under the law. Even this authority could not plead ignorance, as without his participation in one form or other at the primary level before the Inam Tribunal itself, no proceedings could possibly be proceeded with. No counter affidavit is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer either in the application filed for condonation of delay or even in the present application in WPMP No.2575 of 2009 nor does it disclose any reasons on his behalf for the lapses. Nothing is attributed for his silence. It is curious to note, that even in the application filed for condonation of delay in WPMP No.2011 of 2009, application to bring Legal Representatives on record in WPMP No. 2240 of 2009 and application seeking leave to file additional affidavit in WPMP No. 2318 of 2009, no reasons much less any cogent, acceptable or sufficient reasons are forthcoming to seek condonation of dealy. The deponent to said applications is none other than the very same Revenue Divisional Officer who is a primary Inam tribunal under the said Act, who held enquiry for grant of occupancy. The deponent to said applications is none other than the very same Revenue Divisional Officer who is a primary Inam tribunal under the said Act, who held enquiry for grant of occupancy. There is absolutely no justification as to why and how the Presiding Officer of such Tribunal pursue any of those proceedings by his participation, for or on behalf of State, which is in utter disregard to the mandate under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 300 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the very objection as to non maintainability of the appeal, applies equally to them to take all these applications filed in the appeal. Even though an attempt has been made by the State to file an application in WPMP No.2575 of 2009 to make itself as party through the District Collector, even the affidavit filed in support of the application, apart from mere reiteration of necessity to come on record with bald versions, no explanation is forthcoming, nor any acceptable reasons have been shown either for such delay or as to the right or entitlement to pursue the proceedings. As required primarily, there is no bare reference as to how the State has any right, title or interest including possession whatsoever of nature and how the grant of occupancy adversely affects them. Necessary, for complaining against the orders, the petitioner needs to have at least a semblance of right, title and interest of whatsoever nature. Nothing is disclosed In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director , Enforcement Directorate (2007) 8 SCC 254 considering the provisions of section 54 of FERA Act, the Supreme Court held as under; “16. An adjudicating authority exercises a quasi-judicial power and discharges judicial functions. When its order had been set aside by the Board, ordinarily in absence of any power to prefer an appeal, it could not do so. The reasonings of the High Court that he had general power, in our opinion, is fallacious. For the purpose of exercising the functions of the Central Government, the officer concerned must be specifically authorised. Only when an officer is so specifically authorised, he can act on behalf of the Central Government and not otherwise. The reasonings of the High Court that he had general power, in our opinion, is fallacious. For the purpose of exercising the functions of the Central Government, the officer concerned must be specifically authorised. Only when an officer is so specifically authorised, he can act on behalf of the Central Government and not otherwise. Only because an officer has been appointed for the purpose of acting in terms of the provisions of the Act, the same would not by itself entitle an officer to discharge all or any of the functions of the Central Government. Even ordinarily a quasi-judicial authority cannot prefer an appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate authority whereby and whereunder its judgment has been set aside. An adjudicating authority, although an officer of the Central Government, should act as an impartial tribunal. An adjudicating authority, therefore, in absence of any power conferred upon it in this behalf by the Central Government, could not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Board.” While allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the contesting respondents the learned Judge has taken into account the entire facts and no doubt opined that the land squarely falls within the definition of agricultural land since the poultry farming and stock breedings is also as good as and falls well within the parameters of agriculture. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act under which the respondents/petitioners are claiming the occupancy rights will come in their way of claiming the relief. There is no dispute to the fact that the land was involved in a long drawn litigation and the respondents/petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of Smt P.Sona Bai wife of Venkat Ramanaiah. Nawab Sulthanul Mulk, who is an eldest son of Sir Vicarul Umra was the original owner and his estate was taken over by the then Nizam in the year 1912 AD and an officer was appointed for management, which has been replaced subsequently by Board of Trust in 1929 AD and the same continued till the abolition of Jagirs in 1949. The material record indisputably goes to show that there was an approval granted in favour of Special Officer of Estate of Paigah on the report of the Village Officer, the then Patwari for the grant of patta in favour of Smt.Sona Bai, and accordingly the sanctioned patta was ordered on 14th Sherewar, 1353 Fasli (1942-43). Later the said Smt.Sona Bai executed a lease deed in favour of Sri K.R. Reddy, who is a partner of Srinivasa Agricultural Firm, Vijayawada and the same was extended under a registered document bearing No.1404/68 dated 29-6-1968. However, under a registered sale deed dated 29-6-1971, Smt.Sona Bai sold the land to an extent of Ac.7-13 gts in favour of Srinivasa Agricultural Firm, Vijayawada. Subsequently, the matter underwent several other proceedings where the patta rights of Smt.Sona Bai was upheld as correct and genuine and purchasers being in possession and occupation. There has been a civil litigation as well in O.S.NO.353 of 1978 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and subsequent appeal to this Court in CCCA.No.59 of 1981 where this Court reiterated the patta in favour of Smt.Sona Bai as genuine. Therefore, on this factual background and being in absolute possession and enjoyment, the respondents/petitioners sought for grant of occupancy rights. Even on perusal of the entire checkered events and the litigation between the parties as referred to, these facts have remained unrebutted without any demur. Nor there is any contra material produced on behalf of the appellants to come to any different conclusion on the right, title and interest. We are of the view that the said findings based upon cogent evidence and material and having remained unrebutted are sufficient enough to conclude that it is Smt.Sona Bai, the vendor has got perfect title and subsequently the petitioners are in possession, and therefore, rightly held to be entitled to occupancy rights. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no other option but to hold that entire persuasions on the part of the appellants and the petitioners in the above applications, who filed the appeal and sought indulgence by other intervening efforts, which are supposedly taken by the State through its District Collector totally bereft of any justifiable reasons and justification, either on merits or on law. In fact, having regard to the aforesaid reasons as pointed out and the callous manner in which proceedings are being pursued with, itself dis-entitle them to seek any relief and indulgence. Hence, there are no merits in the applications in WAMP Nos. 2011, 2240, 2318 and 2575 of 2009 and accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed and consequently, the appeal being not maintainable liable to be rejected. Hence, dismissed with costs.