petitioner on 28.12.1992. Thus, at least by 1994, Ashaiah was aware of ORC granted in favour of petitioner. He ought to have preferred appeal immediately thereafter. Instead, he submitted representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is lower authority than the Revenue Divisional Officer, who granted ORC. Thereafter, to the District Collector twice and then to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Thus, the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 expired long ago, by the time he made application to the Office of Hon’ble Chief Minster. Furthermore, Act do not envisage submission of any application to any authority including the Hon’ble Chief Minister. An aggrieved person against the order made under Section 10 of the Act should prefer appeal under Section 24 of the Act within 30 days from the date of the decision made. There is no other provision in the Act, which enables an aggrieved party to make an application/representation to any other authority other than the authority under Section 24 of the Act. Thus, per se application made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not maintainable. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, appellate authority can exercise jurisdiction on validity of certificate issued under Section 10 of the Act only if an appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party. No appeal was preferred, as noted above, and only application was made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the Joint Collector. Such application cannot be called as an appeal. Furthermore, Act do not envisage exercise of suo-motu power by the Joint Collector. Thus, treating the application as appeal and passing order thereon
