Allowed

Midde Lakshmamma, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reprsented by its

Telangana HC27 Apr 2017WP/12843/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order by the 2nd respondent that condoned a delay in filing an appeal without hearing the petitioner, who had been impleaded. The court found a violation of natural justice due to the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing the order.

What did the court decide?

The order dt.14-02-2014 in Appeal No. F2/03/2014 is set aside and the matter remitted to the 2nd respondent to hear all parties including the petitioner within three months.

Midde Lakshmamma, Vs Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.12843 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶5

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.14-02-2014 of the 2^nd respondent in Appeal No.F2/03/2014, F2/1A-16/2001.

¶6

The said appeal was filed under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by respondent Nos.3 to 5 against respondent Nos.6 to 8 challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in File No.K/884/1990 dt.12-03-2001 in respect of Ac.17-05 gts in Sy. No.809 of Gangapoor village of Jadcherla Mandal.

¶7

Petitioner filed application seeking impleadment in the said appeal. It was allowed on 25-01-2014 in proceedings No.F2/1A-16/2001 by 2^nd respondent. The said order revealed that the matter was then posted to 22-02-2014 for regular hearing.

¶8

However on 14-02-2014 itself, much before 22-02-2014, without hearing the petitioner, the delay of five months eighteen days in filing appeal was condoned by the 2^nd respondent. No reason is assigned by the 2^nd respondent why he preponed hearing of appeal

¶9

MSR,J W.P.No.12843 of 2014

¶10

¶11

after informing the petitioner that the appeal would be heard on 22-02-2014. Thus there is clear violation of principles of natural justice since 2^nd respondent was bound to hear the petitioner before he passed the any order condoning the said delay in the filing of the appeal at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶12

Though learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 stated that he has just entered appearance and needs time to file counter, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in that regard. It is for the 2^nd respondent to explain under what circumstances he preponed the hearing of the delay condonation application in the appeal. In that regard, learned Government Pleader for Revenue could not give any convincing reason.

¶13

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, the order dt.14-02-2014 in Appeal No.F2/03/2014 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to 2^nd respondent to hear the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.6 to 8 on the aspect of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by respondent Nos.3 to 5 after issuing notice to petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 8. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶14

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶16

Date: 27-04-2016 kvr

Midde Lakshmamma, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reprsented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midde Lakshmamma, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reprsented by its

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

Peta Naga Subba Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. P.Lalithamma w/o Peta Naga Subba Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

S.Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Omprakash Devda Agricultural Farm Vs The District Registrar of Assurances, Hyderabad (South)

In Re.. Vs Sri T. Ganesh

Smt. Tumuku Satyavathi Vs The Sub - Registrar