M.S. Liberhan, C.J.
1. This order will dispose of all these appeals as they involve common question as to the maintainability of the appeals on ground of laches.
2. All these Writ Appeals by the State are directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 21-74988 holding that the review petitions filed by the respondents-writ petitioner-before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records (for brevity 'the Commissioner') seeking review of the orders of the Commissioner passed in appeal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (Regulation 2 of 1970) (for brevity 'Regulation 2 of 1970') are maintainable and directing the authorities to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same on merits and according to law.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents who are in possession of certain extent of lands in the scheduled area of Bhadrachalam taluk applied for issuance of ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970, which came into force with effect from 1-74971. The Settlement Officer appointed under the Regulation rejected their claim on the ground that they have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim and the appeals preferred before the Commissioner were also rejected. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents are able to produce certain documents to establish their continuous possession for eight years prior to the commencement of Regulation 2 of 1970, which is essential for issuance of pattas, and, therefore, they sought for review of the orders of the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the review applications on the ground that the review petitions are not maintainable under the Regulation and that he had no power of review. The learned Single Judge held that since the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities, the review applications are clearly maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and accordingly remitted back the matters to the Commissioner for fresh consideration setting aside the orders of the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeals are filed.
4. Initially, the appeals were filed on 29-12-1989 with delay of more than one year, but the Registry for compliance of certain objections returned the same on 16-1-1990. It appears that thereafter the appeals were not presented in the Registry after complying with the objections taken by the Registry. It is only on 1-2-1997 two sets of applications were filed in all the appeals, one to condone the delay of 418 days in representing the appeals and the other to condone the delay of 496 days in filing the appeals and now the appeals have Come up for admission in 2000.
5. The main ground taken in respect of the applications filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal is that due to heavy rush of work the appeals could not be filed in time. Though there was delay of more than seven years in representing the appeals, curiously, it is stated that the delay in representing the appeals was only 418 days. The ground taken in respect of condonation of delay in representing the appeals is that due to heavy rush of work and misplacement of files in the office of the Government Pleader the appeals could not be represented in time.
6. On consideration of the entire material on record, we are of the view that neither the delay in presenting the appeals nor the inordinate delay in representing the appeals has been property explained. Heavy rush of work or misplacement of files or any administrative delay in processing the matters cannot be a ground to seek for condonation of delay.
7. Be that as it may, it appears that there was a total callousness on the part of the authorities concerned in rendering the law of limitation as illusory and ridiculous. The appeals which were filed in the year 1989 are coming up for admission in 2000 and the only question involved in the appeals is whether the Commissioner has power to review his own orders passed under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970 and whether the review petitions are maintainable. The record indicates that somewhere somebody is responsible for this inordinate delay in representing the appeals. But, we are not inclined to go into the same.
8. The avowed object of limitation is that the sword of uncertainty should not be kept hanging on the head of a litigant for indeterminate period and the parties should be able to get the result of the litigation without there being any uncertainty. Absolutely, there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay in presenting or representing the appeals, which is newly ten years. The State cannot be treated on a different pedestal than the ordinary litigant in the matter of condonation of delay. No reasons whatsoever have been disclosed and explained by the appellant for the inordinate delay.
9. Further, following the law laid down by this Court in the matter number of similar cases must have been decided by now. Even if it is a wrong law, the precedent has to be followed till the appellate Court reverses it so that there will be finality to the decision of the Court and the rights of the parties will be determined in accordance with the settled law. The law cannot be kept on hanging.
10. Even on merits also, we find that the learned Single Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that the review application before the Commissioner is maintainable as Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Regulation 2 of 1970 specifically adopts the Code of Civil Procedure with all its implications and procedures as applicable to the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities and the substantive rights of the parties can be decided in the review. Further, review being a substantive power, the authority has a right to correct its error in review.
11. It has also been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar writ petitions being W.P. No. 14382 of 1991 and 4261 of 1993 filed by persons similarly, placed like the appellants herein against the orders of the Commissioner dismissing review application have been allowed by this Court on 17-6-1996 and 8-4-1993 respectively taking the same view as was taken by the learned Single Judge in the orders under appeal and the matter was directed to be restored to the file of the Commissioner and the review applications filed against the said orders of this Court were also dismissed.
12. Viewed from any angle, either on merits or on the ground that no sufficient- ground has been disclosed for condoning the inordinate delay in presenting and representing the appeals, we arc of the view that the orders of the learned Single Judge do not call for any interference by us.
13. In view of the observations made above, the appeals being barred by time are liable to be dismissed, They are accordingly dismissed. All the delay condonation applications stand dismissed. No costs.