Dismissed

Smt. Palle Laxmamma @ Dakamma v. Krishna Yadav

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025CRP/2474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a common order dismissing a Civil Revision Petition and an Interlocutory Application for condonement of delay. The petitioners were absent after listing for dismissal, leading to the default disposal of the revision against an order under the A.P. Agricultural Lands Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 2474 of 2025) and Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 2 of 2011) dismissed for default of appearance.

Smt. Palle Laxmamma @ Dakamma Vs Krishna Yadav — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(CRPMP. NO: 1 946 0F 2011)

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:'2474 OF 2025

¶9

Petition under Section 9'1 of A.P.(T.A) Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 against the order dated 31-05-2010 vide proceedings No. F21187812009 on the file of Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District, preferred against the order in proceedings No. 8/8321/1965 dt. 03-05-1966 on the file of the TahsildaAMRO Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Palle Laxmamma @ Dakamma, Wo. Late. Laxmaiah, D/o. Late Pula Rajaiah, age 60 Yrs, Occ. Household, R/o. 18-8-368, Near Mahankali temple, Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶12

Smt. Jelli Kamslya, Wo. Jelli Subash D/o. Late. Pula Rajaiah, aged 50 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o. Narsinghi vilige, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶13

...REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

Krishna Yadav, S/o. Budda Agaiah, aged about 38 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶16

Narsimha Yadav, S/o. Jangilaiah, aged 60 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶17

Mallesh Yadav, S/o. Jangilaiah, aged about 57 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶18

Respondents. 1 to 3 are R/o. 9-2-300/4, Pinsionpura, Hyderabad.

¶19

A. Bharath Reddy, S/o, Raji Reddy, aged about 55 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶20

A. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 50 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶21

A. Ram Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶22

A. Ananda Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, aged about4S yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶23

A. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, aged about 62 yrs, Occ. Agricu lture

¶24

All are R/o. Hydershakote village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

F2 1 ,| oF 2011

¶27

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 130 days in filing revision against the order dated 31-05-2010 in proceedings No. F21187812009 on the file of Joint Collector ll, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Shaik Jilani (None Appeared)

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶30

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶32

l.A.No.2 ot 2011

¶33

.No.1946 of 2 y).{ l.,";-

¶34

COMMON ORDER:

¶35

!.A.No.2 of 2011 has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of (130) days in preferring the civil Revision Petition (c.R.P. (sR) No. 32200 of 2010) against the order dated 31.05.2010 vide Proceedings No.F2l187812009 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶36

None appeared for the petitioners/revision petitioners.

¶37

As per the Proceeding Sheet, on 12.02.2025 as there was no representation for the petitioners/revision petitioners, the matter was directed to be listed on 13.02.2025 under the caption 'For Dismissal'. Despite listing the matter 'for dismissal', none has represented the petitioners/revision petitioners. Having left with no other option, this lnterlocutory Application for condonation of delay is dismissed for default. Consequently, the C.R.P. (S.R ) is cjismissed. No order as to costs.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Joint Collector-ll,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶44

The Special^{Grade DgOlIV} Qo.llector^{and Revenue Divisionalofficer, chevella} Division, Ranga^{ReddY District'}

¶45

One CC^{to Sri Shaik Jilani, Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VH/PSL \ +

(

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310212025

c o 3 N ORDER I 2 0F 2011 (CRPMP NO: 1946 OF 201U CRP.No.2474 of Z02S

¶51

l He - ra
(
3, 1o ffitl ru[ (,a
t}
Cr-, I
'.2 'T L: ,.: [)

¶52

DISMISSING THE CRP (A a[*Ir-i u)

Smt. Palle Laxmamma @ Dakamma v. Krishna Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Palle Laxmamma @ Dakamma v. Krishna Yadav

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

Chiliveru Sreramulu Vs Macharla Ramesh

Shri Subha Chari (Died Per Lrs) and 3 Others Vs Shri G.Rajendranath Goud (Died)

Jijula Laxman Babu (Died) Vs Jennaikode Kamalamma (Died)

Kandada Buchi Reddy Vs Kandada Narsimha Reddy

Smt. Yamuna Mutyalu , Yamuna Mutyala Vs Konar Organics Limited, Hyd and Another

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs L. Balanarsingh