Allowed

K Pentaiah (Died) v. the Joint Collector

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023CRP/114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of a protection tenant's application to condone a 424-day delay in filing an appeal regarding ownership certificates under the Telangana Tenancy Act. The Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay subject to the payment of costs, and directed the appellate authority to decide the merits.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; appeal allowed by condoning 424-day delay on payment of Rs. 1,000 costs; appellate authority directed to pass orders within 3 months.

K Pentaiah (Died) Vs the Joint Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{M.G. PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION^PETITION No:^{1'14of 2019}

¶7

Petition Under Section 91 of the^{A.P.(TelanganaArea) Tenancy&} Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 against the^{Order dated15-09-2018 in file} No.Ft3857l2o17 0n the file of the^{court of theJoint collector, VikarabadDistrict,} Telangana State, at Vikarabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Kruva Pentaiah^{(DIED) as} Per^LR's

¶10

Kurva Pedda Balaiah, S/o. late^{PeddaChinnaiah' Aged about 45 years, Occu} Agriculture, Rl/o. Banda Yelkicherla^{Village, KulkacherlaMandal' Vikarabad} District.

¶11

Kurva Ramaiah, S/o.^{Anjialiah, Aged about 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, Ri/o'} Banda Yelkicheila^{Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, VikarabadDistrict-}

¶12

Kurva Chinna Balaiah, Aged about^{38 years' Occu: Agriculture,R/o. Banda} Yelkicherla Village, KulkaCherla^{Mandal, VikarabadDistrict.}

¶13

Kurva Chinna Chinnaiah,^{S/o.Pentaiah,Aged about 60 years, Occu} Agriculture, Rl/ o. Banda Yelkicherla^{Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad} District.

¶14

...Petitionets/Appellants/Protected^Tenants

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Joint Collector, Vikarabad^{District At Vkarabad,Vikarabad District.}

¶17

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Vikarabad, At Vikarabad.}

¶18

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer,^{Kulkacherla Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad} District.

¶19

¶20

Smt. Subhadra Bai^{(died)as per LR's}

¶21

5 Smt. Revathi, W/o. P.Venkatesh,^{Rl/o.H. No.3-3-978, Kutbiguda,nyoerabad-} 500 027.

¶22

6 smt. vedavathi, Dio. P.suryakanth^{Rao, Rl/o. H. No.3-3-978, Kutbiguda'} Hyderabad - 5OO O27^.

¶23

¶24

Shivshanker Rao, S/o. Suryakanth^{Rao, Rl/o.H. No.3-3-978, Kutbiguda'} Hyderabad - 500 O27^.

¶25

Nilesh Kumar, S/o. Suryakanth^{Rao,R:/o.H. No.3-3-978, Kutbiguda,} Hyderabad - 5O0 O27^.

¶26

Vinod Kumar, S/o. Suryakanth^{Rao, R/o. H.No.3-3-978, Kutbiguda,} Hyderabad - 5O0 027^.

¶27

...Respondents/Respondents/Land Lords

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶29

Petition under Order 41, Rule 27, and R/w^{Section151CPC praying that in} the circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High} Court may be^pleased to receive the^{following documents in evidenceas} additional evidence, namely.

¶30

(i) Certified copy of Khasra Pahani^(1954-55)

¶31

(ii) Certified copy of extract of tenancy register in^{respect of Bandi} Yelkacherla Village

¶32

(iii) Certified copy of Final List of Protected^{Tenants of Bandi Yelkacherla}

¶33

in the above CRP No. 114 of 2U9.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^N. VASUDEVA^REDDY

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI VIJAY B. PAROPALARI}

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶40

CtvIL REVISION PETITION No. 114 of 2019

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This revision is filed by protected tenants assailing the order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the Joint Collector, Vikarabad District in Case No. F/3857 l2Ol7. By the impugned order, the application filed by the protected tenants to condone the delay of 424 days in preferring the appeal under Section 90 of Andhra Pradesh State (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950, against the ex parte orders passed by the primary authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad dated 3 l.O7 .2013, was dismissed.

¶43

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the appel,late authority.

¶44

The [acts of the case are that on i0.08.1977 vide proceedings No. H/ 1862176,38-E certificates were grarlted to the protected tenants/ revision petitioners by the then primary authority, Vikarabad Aggrieved by the same, the \ \

¶45

¶46

vGP..t CRP l'o. lll of20l9

¶47

landlord (respondent No.4 herein) filed appeal before the appellate authority. On contest, the appellate authority vide proceedings No. 34/5350/92 dated 11.10.1994 cancelled all the ownership certilicates except one ln respect of Sy Nos.l10, 111, 113, ll7, adrlreasuring Ac.7.l6 guntas covered by another appeal pending before the Collectorate and remanded the matter to the primary authority, Chevella to take action under Section 38E of the Act as per physical possession of the P.Ts. as per law. On such remand, the primary authority passed orders on 31.07.2013 granting 38-E certilicate in favour of the tenants over the survey Numbers in respect of which they are not the protected tenants. Challenging the said proceedings, the tenants filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority only on 3l.lO.2Ol4 i.e., with a delay of 424 d.ays. However, the same was returned on 16.11.2015 and again on 2l.Il.2ol7 the tenarrts resubmitted the appeal with a petition to condone the delay in resubmitting the appeal. However, by the impugrred order, the lower appellate authority has dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision by the tenants.

¶48

¶49

¶50

,VG P,J CRP *o. lll of20l9

¶51

¶52

The reasons explained by the petitioners for condoning the delay are that they could not appear before the primary authority on 31.07.2013 due to ill-health of the counsel and on 16.11.2015 vide endorsement No. F2/2578 of 2014, the appellate authority closed the condone delay petition, for not frling the process fees. Thereafter, the revision petitioners came up with condone delay petition in resubmitting the appeal stating that due to oversight, they could not file the process fees and that for want o[ process, the appellate authority, inadvertently, return the appeal to one Hanumanth Reddy, learned counsel, who is resident of H.No. ll 17-72, Huda colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad, instead of Jaipal Reddy, who is the counsel for the revision petitioners. After much persuasion, the revision petitioners came to know about the return of the appeal to said Hanumanth Reddy and immediately, they collected the papers from the said advocate and resubmitted the same before the appellate authority. In the process, there is a delay in liling the appeal and the said delay is neither wanton nor deliberate.

¶53

¶54

.vcP J CRI' \o lll of2019

¶55

Contesting the said claim, the lar.rdlords/ respondent Nos. 2 to 9 liled counter contendillg that the^primary authority passed orders in the year 2013 and thereafter, the protected tenants frled the appeal^{before the appellate} authority with delay of nearly 500 days, only to^{grab the} land. It is further contended that the revision^petitioners are negligent in prosecuting their^case all^alongeven though they knerv about the^{pendencyof case. It is lastly} contended that the reasons assigned^{by the revision} petitioners for condoning the delay^{of 424 days are not} convincing and miserably^{failed to explain the day to day} delay. Hence,^{prayed to dismiss the petition.}

¶56

Heard both sides and^{perused the materialavailable} on record.

¶57

Learned counsel for^{therevisionpetitioners} contended that the^{primary authority has erroneously} passed orders dated 31.O7.2O13^{withoutconsidering the} compromise memo datecl^{26.O9.199a. He furtherargued} that the appellate authority^{should have taken into} account the fact that Telangana^{state saw the formation of}

¶58

)

¶59

AIGP,J CRP No. I l4 of2019

¶60

new districts in October 2O16 and that the subject lands, are re-allocated to the territorial jurisdiction of newly formed Vikarabad District. He lastly contended that the technicalities should not have interpreted the petition and instead of appeasing the matter on narrow technicalities, the appellate authority ought to have condone the delay in filing the appea.l.

¶61

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of landlords/ respondent Nos. 2 to 9 sought to sustain the impugned order of the appellate authority contending that the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the condone delay petition as the revision petitioners are failed to explain the reasons for such an inordinate delay in preferring the appea_l and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

¶62

9 . It is pertinent to note that the primary authority passed ex parte orders on 31.03.2013 by granting 3g_E certificate in favour of revision petitioners in respect of Survey Nos. 63, I43, l4S, l59 in all admeasuring Ac.2S_37 guntas as against the claim of the protected

¶63

¶64

i l

¶65

\IGP,J CRP \o llJ of:019

¶66

tenants/revision petitioners in respect of Survey Nos. 147, 148/A, 150, 151, 152, 153 in all admeasuring Ac.25-37 guntas in all totally admeasuring Ac.48-00 guntas. The main ground urged by ttre petitioners for the delay is that inadvertently, the lower appellate authority, for want of process fee, has returned the appeal to one Hanmanth Reddy, learned counsel, instead of Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the protected tenants. After lapse of certain time, the revision petitioners came to know about the return of the papers to the wrong counsel and after collecting the papers from the said counsel, they resubmitted the appeal with the delay of 424 days. Although, the revision petitioners have not explained the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal considering the nature of the proceedings, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the case instead of appeasing the matter in a narrow compass or on technicalities, however, by imposing costs on the revision petitioners.

¶67

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the

¶68

.-=---7

¶69

¶70

YGP,J ( RI' ;'o ) la <{ )0t9

¶71

Joint Collector, Vikarabad District. Case No. F/3gSZ /20lT is allowed by condoning the delay of 424 days on payment of costs of Rs. l,0OO/- payable by the protected tenants/revision petitioners to the landlords/respondent Nos. 5 to 9 within two weeks lrom today. The appellate authority is directed to take up the appeal filed by the revision petitioners under Section 90 of Andhra pradesh State (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, l95O and shall pass necessa4/ orders thereon within three (03) months after payment of costs by the revision petitioners as directed above.

¶72

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶73

closed.

¶74

Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT GI //TRUE COPY//

¶75

To,

¶76

sEcTto OFFICER

¶77