JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.D.Dis.(D2)250/2005, dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.9.50 cents in Survey No.1228 of Peddapolamada Village, Tadipatri Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner has been granted ryothwari patta on 28.11.1980 by 2nd respondent in exercise of powers under Section 7(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an extent of Acs.9.50 cents in Survey No.1228 of Peddapolamada Village, Tadipatri Mandal. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he has been issued pattadar passbook and title deed. That being so, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005 proposing to cancel the ryothwari patta granted in his favour and called upon to submit explanation. The reason assigned for issuance of show-cause notice was that the very same subject land was already granted ryothwari patta in favour of Sree Vighneswara Swamy Temple way back on 27.01.1961 and that without noticing the same, the same has been once again granted ryothwari patta in favour of the petitioner on 28.11.1980, hence proposed to cancel the later patta. The petitioner has challenged the said show-cause notice by filing the Writ Petition No.17170 of 2005 contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued show-cause notice has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, which is in the nature of an appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act, apparently, beyond the prescribed period of sixty (60) days. This Court having noticed that the petitioner has already submitted explanation and participated in the enquiry in pursuance to the show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005, dismissed the writ petition, however, directing the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. Even before this order came to be passed on 10.08.2005, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Tahsildar to carry out necessary changes in the revenue records by deleting the name of the petitioner and to issue necessary passbooks and title deeds in favour of the Commissioner, Endowments Department reflecting the name of Sree Vighneswara Swamy as ryothwari patta holder. The said order passed by 1st respondent is assailed in the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. Perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the very issuance of show-cause notice dated 13.06.2005 and the consequential order dated 05.08.2005 cancelling the ryothwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. The 1st respondent apparently assumed jurisdiction and entertained the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, as appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act and inasmuch as such appellate powers are to be exercised within a period of sixty (60) days from the grant of ryothwari patta, the 1st respondent ought not have entertained the representation of the Assistant Commissioner, after nearly almost 25 years. 6. He further contend that under Section 7(2) of the Act, the limitation prescribed for filing appeal is only sixty (60) days and the Revenue Divisional Officer is not conferred with any power to condone the delay beyond sixty (60) days and he exercising powers in pursuance to Section 7(2) of the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain any Appeal beyond the prescribed statutory time limit. He would also contend that the proceedings initiated are in the nature of suo motu, inasmuch as merely basing on representation made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, the 1st respondent could not have issued show-cause notice and proceeded with the appeal. In support of his submissions reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sri Veerappa v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, 2002 (2) APLJ 420 (HC) and would draw the attention to Para No.7, reads as under : "7. 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 sub-section (2) of Section 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. 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 2,555 days would not arise." 7. He would also place reliance on the following judgments in support of the above contention : 1. Sri R. Balasubramanyam Reddy and others v. District Collector, Chittoor and others, (1990) 1 An WR 95; 2. Final Order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana in Devireddy Srikanth Reddy and another v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others, WP No.4623 of 2010 dated 04.07.2023 3. Smt. D. Umarani v. District Collector, Karimnagar and others, 2015 (4) ALD 572; 4. Sri Sanepalli Nageswar Rao and another v. District Collector, Khammam and others, 2002 (4) ALD 497 (DB); 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be suo motu inasmuch as it was based on representation made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, who, on noticing that, the subject land was already granted ryothwari patta in favour of the Deity (Sree Vighneswara Swamy Temple), way back on 27.01.1961, without noticing which the very same land has been once again granted ryothwari patta in favour of the petitioner, sought for cancellation, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly issued show-cause notice for cancelling the same. She would further contend that the representation submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, dated 21.02.2005 has been treated as appeal in terms of the Section 7(2) of the Act, under which the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to exercise appellate jurisdiction, therefore it cannot be said that the order issued by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. That apart, when already there was a patta granted in favour of the Deity, the patta could not have been once again issued in favour of the petitioner, which was found to be based on fictitious documents, therefore, the enquiry initiated by the 1st respondent was well within his powers and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Before dealing with the rival contentions, the provision under which powers are exercised by the 1st respondent are extracted as under : 7. Grant of ryothwari pattas.-(1) As soon as may be after commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall, on applications by a person or an institution, after serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryothwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and examining all the relevant records, determine the persons or institutions entitled to ryotwari pattas in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and grant them ryothwari patta in the prescribed form. (2) Any person or institution aggrieved by the grant of a ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) may appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of such grant, and the Revenue Court may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. (3) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (2), and where no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) shall be final. 10. As per Section 7(1) of the Act, the Tahsildar is the competent authority to conduct enquiry and issue ryotwari patta in respect of inam lands. Any person aggrieved by such grant of royatwari patta under sub-section (1), has a remedy of preferring appeal before the Revenue Court within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of such grant. The Revenue Court has been defined under Section 2(g) to mean Court of Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the inam lands are situated. The sub-section (2) prescribes a outer time limit of sixty (60) days to prefer appeal and there is no power conferred on Revenue Court to entertain any appeal beyond the said period. The Revenue Court has been defined under Section 2(g) to mean Court of Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the inam lands are situated. The sub-section (2) prescribes a outer time limit of sixty (60) days to prefer appeal and there is no power conferred on Revenue Court to entertain any appeal beyond the said period. In fact, sub-Section (3) postulates that the decision of Revenue Court under sub-section (2) and in case where no appeal is preferred against the grant of patta by the Tahsildar, under sub-section (1) shall be final. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner vide Patta No.179/1980 dated 28.11.1980 and that he has also been issued passbook and title deed. The enquiry proposed under show-cause notice was dated 13.06.2005 which apparently was based on letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, dated 21.02.2005 by which the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled. The 1st respondent in the counter has not denied that the enquiry that was conducted was in exercise of powers under Section 7(2) of the Act and not under any other provision. The 1st respondent also admitted that based on the representation given by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, the said representation was treated as appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act and the same was disposed in accordance with law. When the patta was granted in the year 1980 and the enquiry was sought to be conducted for cancellation of the same treating the same as appeal in the year 2005, nearly about 20 years, the least 1st respondent ought to have examined was whether such powers could be exercised under Section 7(2) of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer being creature of statute is bound to exercise the powers so vested strictly in the manner prescribed and within the parameters thereof. The Revenue Divisional Officer being creature of statute is bound to exercise the powers so vested strictly in the manner prescribed and within the parameters thereof. The Division Bench of this Court on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sri Veerappa's case (supra), while construing the very same provision has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer being creature of the statute whatever power he exercises under statute should be strictly within the parameters of the power granted to him and that as the said provision does not confer any power to condone delay, question of the exercising any power to entertain the appeal or condone delay beyond 60 days does not arise and the same would be without jurisdiction. The said preposition has been consistently followed by the other judgments which have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though, not under the Scheme of the present Act, but, other enactments which are analogues to the provisions which are being now considered. In those judgments, it has also been considered as to whether the appellate authorities who have been bestowed with powers under the respective enactments could entertain any applications beyond the period of limitation specified therein by extending the applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act. While negativing such contention held that Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application, particularly when statute does not specifically provide for the same. 12. This Court finds that the 1st respondent has clearly exceeded the jurisdiction in entertaining the representation of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments as appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act and therefore the order passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the ryotwari patta granted in favour of petitioner is hereby set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.