Petitioners challenged an order dismissing their revision appeal due to a 125-day filing delay. The Court found no infirmity in the order refusing the delay condonation and dismissed the writ petition as misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 13955 of 2004
Between:
1. V. Rama Krishna Reddy S/o Late V. narayana Reddy R/o 3-6-125, Flat No. 103 Samrajyalakshmi Towers, Hyderguda, Hyderabad
2. V. Rama Linga Reddy S/o Late V. Narayana Reddy R/o 3-6-125, Flat No. 103 Samrajyalakshmi Towers, Hyderguda, Hyderabad
3. V. Rama Chandra Reddy S/o Late V. Narayana Reddy R/o 3-6-125, Flat No. 103 Samrajyalakshmi Towers, Hyderguda, Hyderabad
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1. The District Collector, Nalgonda District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir,
Nalgonda District
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the appeal without properly appreciating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and consequently set a side the order dated 26.2.2004 in Revision No. F2/1435/2004 passed by the 1st respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.ANUSHA MAHMOOD
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.8.2003 passed under Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for brevity), the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda under Section 24 of the Act. The Joint Collector dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed 125 days after expiry of limitation period. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Section 24 of the Act states the Joint Collector as person designated for hearing appeals against the orders of Inams Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer). Curiously, the Joint Collector, who passed the order in exercise of the judicial powers, is not made a party to this writ petition. However I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Joint Collector refusing to condone the delay of 125 days.
The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed.
Date : August 09, 2004. V.V.S. RAO, J
YS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The District Collector, Nalgonda District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir,
Nalgonda District
3. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T)
4. Two CD copies.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of a revision appeal due to delay of 125 days.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Rama Krishna Reddy
V. Rama Linga Reddy
V. Rama Chandra Reddy
The District Collector, Nalgonda District
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
