APHC010493982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25420/2025 Between: 1. B VENKATA RANGA REDDY, S/O. B. RANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO. 13-1-846-3, SHIRDI NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR TOWN ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 2. ANUMULA RAMESWARAMMA, W/O. ANUMULA TIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DHONE VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. PETITIONERS ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT AT NANDYA 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in rejecting the Petitioners appeal under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-Settlement Register) Act, 2017, vide proceedings Ref. No. Assn.11/2877306/2025 dated 20-08-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct Set-aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents in Restrain the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land, admeasuring Ac.3 .00 in Survey No. 503 of Dhone Village and Mandal, Nandyal District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 20-08-2025 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (Respondent No. 2), in CCLA’s Ref. No. Assn.11/2877306/2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BANDI SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25420 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in rejecting the Petitioners appeal under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-Settlement Register) Act, 2017, vide proceedings Ref. No. Assn.11/2877306/2025 dated 20- 08-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct Set-aside the same and pass…” 2. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings Ref.No.Assn.II/2877306/2025/2025, dated 20.08.2025, rejected the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner, on the ground that there is a delay of six days in filing of the appeal beyond the period of 60 days stipulated for filing the Grievance Petition before the State Level Grievance Redressal Committee as per the G.O.Ms.No.562, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 24.11.2023, which assailed before this Court on the ground that the District Collector, Nandyal has disposed of the appeal vide order dated 15.04.2025 and the same was posted on 24.04.2025 as per the postal receipt filed along with the writ petition, and it was received on 25.04.2025 and if the delay is calculated from the date of receipt of the order, there will be no delay in filing the appeal. Page 4 of 6 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that as there is a delay, respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal and the delay has to be calculated from the date of order. 4. It is trite law the period of limitation begins to run not from the date of delivery of the order or knowledge. Delivery of document is confirmed only if Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is satisfied. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 establishes a legal presumption that service of a document sent by registered post is deemed to have been effected at the time the letter would normally be delivered by post, provided the document was properly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered mail. This is a rebuttable presumption, meaning the person receiving the notice can provide evidence to prove otherwise. In the present case that an order that was passed on 15.04.2025 and it was posted on 24.05.2025, it was delivered to the writ petitioner by post on 24.05.2025, after 10 days and if the date of delivery is taken into consideration, there is no delay in filing the appeal. 5. Admittedly, as per the receipt filed along with the writ petition, the order of the District Collector was sent through post on 24.04.2025 and it was received by the 1st petitioner on 25.04.2025. And if the delay is calculated from the date of receipt of the order, there will be no delay in filing the appeal. So in my consider opinion, the appeal was not barred by limitation, when it was presented. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to entertain the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.09.2025 TVN 42 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25420 OF 2025 Date: 18.09.2025 TVN