Allowed

Edumulapti Munaswamy Naidu, v. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Telangana HC21 Apr 2008WP/8698/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a direction to reject a revision petition as time-barred. It was held that the delay was excusable due to a car accident and medical incapacity. The impugned order was set aside, and the first respondent was directed to condone the delay and decide the revision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2008 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to condone the delay and entertain the revision petition and decide the same on merits.

Edumulapti Munaswamy Naidu, Vs The Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶4

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8698 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Edumulapti Munaswamy Naidu, S/o. Reddanna (died) per L.Rs. E.Venkataprasad, S/o. Late Munaswamy Naidu, aged 47 yrs. 2 Edumulapti Narayanaswamy Naidu, S/o. Chandra Munawamy Naidu, 3 Edumulapti Krishnamma, W/o. Sundariah Naidu (died) Rep by her Lr. E.Damodar Naidu, S/o. Late Sundaraiah Naidu, Aged 36 yrs. 4 Edumulapati Ramanadham Naidu, S/o. Late Rangaiah Naidu, R/o. Rayavaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 Edumulapati Krishnamurthy Naidu, S/o. Late Rangaiah Naidu, R/o. Rayavaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 Edumulapti Parandhama Naidu, S/o. Late Rangaiah Naidu, R/o. Rayavaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 Edumulapati Bhaskar Naidu, S/o. Late Rangaiah Naidu, R/o. Rayavaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector Cum Settlement Officer,(FAC), Chittoor District. 3 Tahsildar, Chandragiri now re-designated as Mandal Tahsildar, Pulicherla Mandal,Chittoor District.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

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 to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one

¶12

in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings dt.28/2/2008 passed in D.Dis.No.B1/1063/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy and violation of principles ofnatural justice and consequentially direct therespondents to grant patta to the petitioners in the interest of justice and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶17

W.P. No. 8698 of 2008

¶18

Oral order:

¶19

Assailing the order dated 28.02.2008, passed by the

¶20

1^st respondent, namely the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 30.07.2007 passed by the

¶21

2^nd respondent, namely Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, on the ground that it is time barred, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is delay of only 78 days in preferring revision before the 1^st respondent against the order dated 30.07.2007 of the 2^nd respondent, and even though the petitioners filed condone delay petition along with the revision, explaining the reasons for not filing the revision in time, the 1^st respondent without considering the same, has passed the impugned order rejecting the revision as time barred, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶24

The delay in preferring the revision petition by the petitioners

¶25

against the orders of the 2^nd respondent before the 1^st respondent is not abnormal. Considering the fact that the 4^th petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition as well as in the affidavit filed before this Court, has stated that since he met with a car accident and was hospitalized, he could not file the revision in time, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also agreed that the impugned order be set aside and the 1^st respondent be directed to condone the delay and dispose of the revision on merits, and more so when the 4^th respondent produced a medical certificate to that effect, which he filed before the 1^st respondent along with the condone delay petition.

¶26

In view of the admitted stand taken, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶27

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to condone the delay and entertain the revision filed by the petitioners and decide the same on in its own merits, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. No costs.

¶28

_________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶29

Date: 21^st April, 2008 KSR

.... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶34

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}

Edumulapti Munaswamy Naidu, v. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edumulapti Munaswamy Naidu, v. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Purnachandra Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Makkena Vijaya Rao Vs The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

S. Pentaiah, Vs The State of A.P. rep by its Collector

Smt.B.Sanjeevamma, Vs The Superintending Engineer, (Randb Circle)

M/s Shree Agri Ventures Pvt. Limited, a company in Vs The District Collector

G.Laxminarayana Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Prl. Secreatary to Govt.