Allowed

Madupally Yadaiah v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District.

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012WP/15227/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an appellate order restoring an appeal without notice to the original petitioners under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing with proper notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and remanded to the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh within three months with all parties appearing.

Madupally Yadaiah Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.15227 of 2008

¶3

2 7 th July, 2012

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Madupally Yadaiah and another .. Petitioners And Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District, And others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶7

Writ Petition No.15227 of 2008

¶8

ORDER:-

¶9

Challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceeding issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, on 19-4-2008 on an appeal presented under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶10

The facts in brief are:- the petitioners No.1 and 2 claim that they purchased Ac.0.12 guntas and Ac.5.00 guntas respectively from the father of respondents No.3 and 4 under unregistered sale deeds. They filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for validation of the sale deeds under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Their application came to be considered and certificate in Form No.XIII(B)/XIII(C) came to be issued. Respondents No.3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Initially,

¶11

the appeal ended in dismissal for non-prosecution. Respondents No.3 and 4 filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal and their application came to be allowed and consequently, the appeal restored to file. The appellate authority on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, proceeded to allow the appeal setting aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Cherial, with regard to the validation of the unregistered sale deeds and issuance of XIII-B certificate on 27-81997 by order dated 19-4-2008. Hence, this Writ Petition by the respondents in the appeal presented before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶12

Rule nisi came to be issued on 16-7-2008.

¶13

Pending the Writ Petition, respondent No.3 died and his legal representatives came on record as respondents No.5 to 9.

¶14

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 9 and perused the order impugned in the Writ Petition.

¶15

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that on the application moved by respondents No.3 and 4 before the appellate authority to set aside the dismissed for default order, Counsel appeared on their behalf made endorsement that the petitioners had taken away the brief from him and that despite of such endorsement, the appellate authority proceeded to allow the application and restored the appeal. It is also contended by him that the appellate authority has not given any opportunity to the petitioners after restoring the appeal to file.

¶16

Be that as it may, a fact remains that after restoration of the appeal, the petitioners herein were not put on notice. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is set aside

¶17

remanding the matter back to the appellate authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon – respondent No.1 to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders afresh. The petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 27-8-2012 to take further proceedings. The appellate Court has to pass appropriate orders afresh, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of their appearance.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

B.Seshasayana Reddy, J

¶20

27^th July, 2012

¶21

Note: - Issue order copy in one week

¶22

(B/o.smr)

Madupally Yadaiah v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madupally Yadaiah v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerasaram Rukma , Kummari Rukma Vs Md. Gousuddin

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Div. Office, Vs Mr.Singarapu Prakash

Ponna Munikrishnaiah, Vs Tamilnadu STate Transport Corporation, Represented by its

Jaka Rakhatoon Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Edla Buchaiah Allias Pichaiah, Vs Govt.Of India

Yarlagadda Venkata Rama Rao Vs The Govt of A.P