JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri B. Sashibhushan Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office of Additional Advocate General for Respondents. 2. The prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Proceedings No.V2/101/2013, dtd. 6/2/2014 of Commissioner of Appeals in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners over the land in Survey No.173/1 admeasuring Ac.2.17 cents and 173/3P admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents situated at Konka Chennaiahgunta Village of Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor district and pass such further or other orders ....". 3. The facts as stated by the Writ Petitioners are as under: i. The petition subject property originally formed part of Inam village granted by Poligar, Thimmappanayanivaru vide Title Deed No.2942 in the year 1677. After several transactions, one Sri Kondapalli Chenga Reddy has purchased an extent of Acs.178.33 cents covered under Title Deed No.2942 through Registered Document No.703 of 1941 dtd. 17/8/1941 from the then Inamdar, Valluru Venkatapathy Chetty. In this document, it is pertinent to state that the specific boundaries have been mentioned with reference to the schedule property of Registered Document No.703 of 1941 as West and South of Thimminaidpalem village lands and North of Poolavanigunta and Jammivanipatteda lands and East to the lands of Tirupati and Korlakunta Villages. ii. Writ Petitioners" vendor one Sri T. Krishnaiah has purchased an extent of Ac.6.07 cents from the Inamdars Sri Kondepalli Chenga Reddy, K. Govinda Reddy and Gurvaiah Chetty with Paimash No.8 and with sub-divisions A, C and D of Konka Chennaiahgunta Inam Village through Registered Document No.1156 of 1964 dtd. 17/4/1964. iii. Sri T. Krishnaiah Chetty made a Claim Petition before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari Patta. The competent authority namely Inam Deputy Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, has passed Order vide Proceedings No.7 of 1983 dtd. 5/7/1983; and, Ryotwari Patta No.1 of 1983 dtd. 17/4/1964. iii. Sri T. Krishnaiah Chetty made a Claim Petition before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari Patta. The competent authority namely Inam Deputy Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, has passed Order vide Proceedings No.7 of 1983 dtd. 5/7/1983; and, Ryotwari Patta No.1 of 1983 dtd. 5/7/1983 was granted in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173/3 Part of Konka Chennaiahgunta Village (Ex.P.1). It is also stated that while passing Order dtd. 5/7/1983, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar held that the lands were under effective cultivation after inspecting the physical features of the land in question. Ryotwari Pattas were also issued by Inam Deputy Tahsildar and changes were duly incorporated in the Revenue Records i.e., Fair Adangal, and 10 (1) Adangal. While doing so, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar has also earmarked the subject land in sub-divisions and allotted the sub-division in favour of the vendor of the Writ Petitioners as Sy.No.173/4 admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents. iv. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal, has issued a letter No.Roc.A2/349/86 dtd. 22/5/1986 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati stating that there is no objection to register the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173/4 and consequently several registrations have taken place. The Sub-Registrar, Tirupati also gave a certificate stating that market value of the land in question is Rs.2, 17, 80, 000.00 per acre. In the year 1987, Ryotwari Passbook was also issued in the name of Sri T. Krishnaiah, who is the vendor of the Writ Petitioners. Sri T. Krishnaiah was also paying the land revenue. In the year 2004, the Writ Petitioners purchased the petition subject property through Registered Sale Deed Nos.8976/2004, 8979/2004 and 3534/2004. v. It is the further case of the Writ Petitioners, as submitted by the learned counsel for Writ Petitioners, that after delay of 23 years, the District Collector has filed an Appeal against the Order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar dtd. 5/7/1983. This Appeal was filed on or about 5/8/2005. The Competent Authority namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Proceedings dtd. 15/11/2007, has allowed the Appeal filed by the District Collector, without condoning the delay of 23 years. vi. Having been aggrieved by the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the Appeal preferred by the District Collector dtd. 5/7/1983. This Appeal was filed on or about 5/8/2005. The Competent Authority namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Proceedings dtd. 15/11/2007, has allowed the Appeal filed by the District Collector, without condoning the delay of 23 years. vi. Having been aggrieved by the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the Appeal preferred by the District Collector dtd. 15/11/2007, the Writ Petitioners have filed Revision under Sec. 14-A of the A.P (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short the Act, 1956") vii. By Order dtd. 11/11/2008, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has allowed the Revision and remitted the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh consideration with a direction that the issue of delay shall also be taken into account by the Revenue Divisional Officer. viii. In pursuance of the Remand Order of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the Revenue Divisional Officer has once again reconsidered the Appeal and by Order dtd. 31/12/2012, the Appeal preferred by the District Collector was dismissed, as being time barred. Relevant portion of the Order dtd. 31/12/2012 in the said Appeal is extracted hereunder: "In the above circumstances this Court is unable to go into the matter of appeal and the nature of the lands covered there in as the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer has been unfortunately limited at the stage of condonation of delay. In the result, in the above unavoidable circumstances, the appeal is disallowed as time barred". ix. As against the Order passed in the Appeal, the District Collector filed a Revision before the Commissioner of Appeals, which came to be allowed by the Impugned Order dtd. 6/2/2014 and the Ryotwari Patta granted by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1983 was set aside nearly after a span of more than 30 years. x. Having been aggrieved by the Order passed in the Revision by the Commissioner of Appeal, the Writ Petitioners have filed yet another Revision which was not accepted by the Commissioner of Appeals and the same was returned. xi. As there being no alternative remedy, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present Writ Petition. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS: 4. xi. As there being no alternative remedy, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present Writ Petition. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS: 4. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P.2, which is the Fair Adangal, wherein it is shown that the Patta land of an extent of Acs.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173-4 is with the title holder as T. Krishnaiah. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Writ Petitioners that the Revision Authority cannot exercise its power of Revision to condone the delay in preferring an Appeal under Sub-sec. 4 of Sec. 3 the Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners that Sec. 2-A, which was inserted into the Act, 1956 by the amendment vide Act 2 of 1975, cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the Writ Petitioners and that the purport of Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956 is that it can only be applied prospectively but not retrospectively. In any case, power of Revision shall be exercised sparingly and the Revisionary Authority has no power to condone the delay of 23 years and that the power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and to further the cause of justice. 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the finding given by the Commissioner of Appeals in the Impugned Order dtd. 6/2/2014 that the subject property is a communal land and therefore, the same is covered by Sec. 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, is completely unsustainable in the light of the fact that the said Sec. 2-A was inserted into the enactment by way of an amendment vide Act 2 of 1975. Therefore, since Sec. 2-A was only inserted in the year 1975, the provision (Sec. 2-A of the Act of 1956) would only apply prospectively. 6. It is further submitted that the Revisional Authority has not verified the records and also the reasoning given by the Inam Deputy Tahasildar. There are no findings in the impugned Order as to how the Order of the Inam Deputy Tahasildar is factually incorrect. Learned Counsel has further submitted that without there being any plea of fraud or misrepresentation, issues which are already settled cannot be unsettled. 7. There are no findings in the impugned Order as to how the Order of the Inam Deputy Tahasildar is factually incorrect. Learned Counsel has further submitted that without there being any plea of fraud or misrepresentation, issues which are already settled cannot be unsettled. 7. It is further submitted that the Title Deed No.2942 was granted by Thimmappanayanivaru, the then Poligar, during the year 1677. This entire title deed No.2942 was purchased by Sri Kondapalli Chenga Reddy through Registered document No.703 of 1941 dtd. 17/8/1941; and that, thereafter, the vendors of the Petitioners herein have purchased in the year 1964. Therefore, all the sale transactions were, admittedly, prior to 1975, whereas these valuable documents indicating various sale transactions were not at all considered by the Revisional Authority, while setting aside the Orders of Inam Deputy Tahasildar almost after span of 31 years without a legally tenable reason. 8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would further submit that the possession and enjoyment of the subject land was perpetually with the vendors of the Writ Petitioners, who have legally become the owners through their Vendors and their predecessors-in-title for more than 400 years. 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has relied on Para No.5 of the Judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat Rep. by the Executive Officer Vs. Medisetti Venkata Surynarayana, 1995 (2) ALD 174 . The relevant portion of Para No.5 of the said Order is extracted hereunder: "5. ..........................Sec. 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act would obviously operate prospectively to vest only such lands which continue to enjoy the inam character on the date when the Sec. comes into force and cannot be resorted to vest lands which had ceased to be of that nature and sold as such much prior to the Sec. coming into force. As such since there is no case that the land had vested as inam in the State Government being poramboke or tank-bed, the question of State Government being impleaded as a party did not arise, and the mere fact that the District Collector granted permission to construct upon the lands would not defeat the title of the respondents if it otherwise inheres in them." 10. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further contend that the subject property was originally granted by the Poligar Thimmappanayanivaru vide title deed No.29424 in the year 1678 and therefore, has been subjected to several private transactions from the year 1941 and therefore, the subject land cannot be brought under the ambit of Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956 since the said Provision (Sec. 2-A) has come into force only with effect from the year 1975. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would place reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Vs. D. Narsing Rao, AIR 2015 SC 1021 . Learned Counsel would place reliance on Para No.24 of the said Judgment, which is usefully extracted hereunder: "24. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority." 11. In respect of the same proposition as regards the delay, Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment in Veerappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor and Ors. 2002 (5) ALD 121 , which is rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.857 of 2001, dtd. 17/7/2001. Learned Counsel has placed reliance of Para No.8 of the said Judgment, which is usefully extracted hereunder: "8. We would have perhaps fallen in line as suggested by the learned Government Pleader if we did not find the jurisdictional flaw in the impugned order. 17/7/2001. Learned Counsel has placed reliance of Para No.8 of the said Judgment, which is usefully extracted hereunder: "8. We would have perhaps fallen in line as suggested by the learned Government Pleader if we did not find the jurisdictional flaw in the impugned order. As already pointed out supra, under Subsection (2) of Sec. 7 of the Act, an appeal could be preferred by an aggrieved party within 60 days from the date of the order. It is not brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the Act empowers the Revenue Divisional Officer who constitutes the Revenue Court to entertain an appeal by condoning the delay after expiry of 60 days. The Revenue Divisional Officer is a creature of statute and whatever power he exercises under the statute should be strictly within the parameters of power granted to him. Since the statute does not confer any power on him to condone the delay, the Revenue Divisional Officer condoning delay of 2555 days would not arise. On this aspect, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in Balasubramanyam Reddy's case (supra). Secondly, it is quite startling to notice that the Revenue Divisional Officer straight away, without notice to the writ petitioner and completely ignoring natural justice and fair-play in action, ex parte condoned the enormous delay of 2555 days. This particular action of the Revenue Divisional Officer speaks volumes, particularly, in the context of Republican Constitution and Rule of Law and after 52 years of Republic coming into existence. It is for the appropriate authority in the Government to view this matter seriously and to see that such a thing does not happen in future at least. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the very appeal preferred by the District Collector is not maintainable. Therefore, directing the Revenue Court to dispose of the appeal on merit as directed by the learned Single Judge would not arise. No Mandamus will go to an authority, statutory or otherwise, to exercise a power which is not granted by the statute and the law. Since the Act does not grant the power to the District Collector to entertain an appeal beyond 60 days of the date of the order, directing him to decide the appeal on merit is not justified. No Mandamus will go to an authority, statutory or otherwise, to exercise a power which is not granted by the statute and the law. Since the Act does not grant the power to the District Collector to entertain an appeal beyond 60 days of the date of the order, directing him to decide the appeal on merit is not justified. Writ appeal is, therefore, allowed and the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.11598 of 2001, dtd. 14/12/2000 and Review WPMP No. 5573/2000 dtd. 26/4/2001 are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer - is quashed with costs quantified at Rs.2000.00 payable within two weeks from today." 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Healthy Agro Enterprises PVT LTD Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 Law Suit (AP) 666 (W.P.No.16458 of 2021 dtd. 8/10/2021) on the proposition that the power of Revision under Sec. 9 of Record of Rights Act cannot be exercised without the issuance of a Show Cause Notice. 13. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would lastly contend that the Commissioner of Appeals had committed an error in holding that the subject property is communal in nature in as much as the same is factually incorrect. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: 14. On the contrary, Sri B. Sashibhushan Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office of Additional Advocate General for Respondents, has submitted that effect of Sec. 2-A of the Act is retrospective in nature. He has also submitted that the land claimed by the Writ Petitioners is classified as Rallagunta Poramboke. He further submitted that the lands under contest are classified as communal water bodies and not available to the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari Patta and basing on irregular pattas, no individual can get any right or title over the communal lands. It is further submitted that the subject land is situated within Tirupati Corporation limits and has much value and that the lands claimed by the Writ Petitioners does not have agricultural potentiality and contended that the Writ Petition is bereft of any merits, and therefore be dismissed. INTERIM DIRECTION: 15. It is pertinent to mention herein that by Order dtd. It is further submitted that the subject land is situated within Tirupati Corporation limits and has much value and that the lands claimed by the Writ Petitioners does not have agricultural potentiality and contended that the Writ Petition is bereft of any merits, and therefore be dismissed. INTERIM DIRECTION: 15. It is pertinent to mention herein that by Order dtd. 22/5/2014, this Court has directed to maintain status quo existing as on 22/5/2014 with regard to possession. Till date, this interim direction continued. DISCUSSION: 16. Facts in this case are not in dispute insofar as passing of the title flowing from the Title Deed No.2942 in the year 1677. It is indicated that after several transactions from the year 1677 up to 1941, one Sri Kondapalli Chenga Reddy has purchased an extent of Acs.178.33 cents covered under title deed No.2942 through registered document No.703/1941, dtd. 17/8/1941 from the then Inamdar, one Valluru Venkatapathy Chetty. Specific boundaries are also mentioned in this document with reference to the schedule property. Thereafter, the vendor of the Writ Petitioner namely one Sri T. Krishnaiah has purchased an extent of Acs.6.07 cents from Sri Kondapalli Chenga Reddy, K. Govind Reddy and Gurvavaiah Chetty (with various sub divisions) through Registered document No.1156/1964 dtd. 17/4/1964. 17. In the year 1956, A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 was enacted. 18. As it is obligatory under the Act, 1956, Sri T. Krishnaiah Chetti made a Claim Petition before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar for grant of Ryotwari Patta. After conducting due enquiry, the Competent Authority namely Inam Deputy Tahsildar has issued Proceeding No.7/1983, dtd. 5/7/1983 in favour of Sri T. Krishnaiah Chetti. Consequently, Ryotwari Patta No.1/1983 dtd. 5/7/1983 was granted in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173/3 Part of Konka Chennaiahgunta Vilalge. The Inam Deputy Tahsildar, in his Proceedings dtd. 5/7/1983 had held that the subject lands were under effective cultivation after inspecting the physical features of the land. Revenue Records were also duly mutated namely Fair Adangal and 10(1) Adangal. Sub divisions were also made at the time of mutation. 19. As against the Proceedings No.7/1983 dtd. 5/7/1983 passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, after enormous delay of 23 years, the District Collector has filed an Appeal challenging the said Proceeding No.7/1983, dtd. 5/7/1983 of Inam Deputy Tahsildar. 20. Sub divisions were also made at the time of mutation. 19. As against the Proceedings No.7/1983 dtd. 5/7/1983 passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, after enormous delay of 23 years, the District Collector has filed an Appeal challenging the said Proceeding No.7/1983, dtd. 5/7/1983 of Inam Deputy Tahsildar. 20. Under these circumstances, the following issues fall for consideration by this Court: a. Whether the delay of more than 23 years could be condoned by exercising suo motu powers under the Act; b. Whether the subject lands could be brought under the ambit of Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956, which came into effect only from the year 1975 onwards (amendment vide Act 2 of 1975). 21. Insofar as the delay is concerned, this Court is of the view that the issue is no more res integra since the issue has been covered by the ratio in para 24 in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Vs. D. Narsing Rao, AIR 2015 SC 1021 . The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners as regards the effect of Para No.24 of the above mentioned Judgment has already been extracted supra. Therefore, this Court would hold that the Appeal filed by the District Collector against Proceeding No.7/1983, dtd. 5/7/1983 in the year 2005 is hopelessly hit by delay and that the Competent Authority has no power to condone the delay by exercising suo motu powers. 22. Insofar as the application of Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956 is concerned, by the Judgment of this Court in Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat Rep. by the Executive Officer Vs. Medisetti Venkata Suraynarayana, the law is well settled that the operation of Sec. 2-A is only prospective and that the same cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, this Court would hold that the Respondent Authorities cannot draw any benefit from Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956 in as much as this issue is no more a res integra. 23. In the above premise, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned Order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals bearing Proceeding No.V2/101/2013, dtd. 6/2/2014 is set aside. No order as to costs. 24. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.