1) there is gross delay in filing an appeal before RDO for over 27 years
2) an appeal is to be filed within period of 60 days of communication of order . Appeal is barred by limitation
3) TAndhra High Court
M.B. Ratnam And Ors. vs Revenue Divisional Officer And ... on 24 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (1) ALD 826, 2003 (1) ALT 688
the belated attempt on the part of respondents herein to impugn the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is nothing but an after-thought. Settled legal rights cannot be permitted to be unsettled in this fashion. Such course is not permissible in law. If such a course is permitted, there will be no end to the litigation and no finality can be attached to any of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals, as the case may be.
51. The entries in the record of rights are made after holding public enquiries. The entries made in the record of rights carry with them a great evidentiary value, sometimes they constitute the only evidence available in order to establish one's title to the lands. The record of rights is thus prepared, maintained and updated by public servants in discharge of their official duties. It would be impossible to accept that the entries made in the record of rights in the instant case which remained in the record for a period of over 10 years have not been noticed by the respondents until they have preferred the appeals before the appellate authority. The vague explanation offered by the respondents about the entries and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is totally unacceptable.
52. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the so-called appeals preferred by the respondents herein ought not to have been entertained by the appellate authority after long lapse of more than 10 years virtually unsettling the settled rights of the parties. The rights accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be set aside resulting in miscarriage of justice.
53. The order condoning the delay and admitting the appeals and their disposal is vitiated. It is an improper exercise of jurisdiction.