Alampally Pentaiah v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District

Order

This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.9.2006 in File no.F2/4169/2006 of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. One Alampally Pentaiah claiming to be one of the protected tenants of the land in survey No.79 admeasuring Ac.8.25 guntas located at Tolekalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Ranga Reddy District filed an application under Section 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area ) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 ( for short “the Act”), seeking restoration of possession of the said land before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. The said application was numbered as File No.A/1865/1982 and by order dated 31.7.1991, the said application was allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Act before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. The appeal underwent number adjournments. Ultimately a notice dated

11.5.2006 was issued by the Joint Collector proposing to hear the appeal finally on 20.5.2006 at 11 A.M. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 22.5.2006, two days after the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. In the meantime, appeal was decided ex-parte on 20.5.2006 itself. It was dismissed for default on the ground that the petitioner did not show any interest in prosecuting the appeal. On 6.6.2006, the petitioner filed an application restore the appeal. This was numbered as F2/4169/2006. The Joint Collector by his order dated 26.9.2006 dismissed the said application on the ground that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was offered sufficient opportunity to pursue the case and that the petitioner had not availed the said opportunity. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notice dated 11.5.2006 issued by the Joint Collector fixing 20.5.2006 as the date for final hearing of the appeal was received by the petitioner’s counsel on 22.5.2006; that the Joint Collector could not have held that the petitioner was absent despite notice and petitioner was not showing any interest pursuing the appeal and therefore ought not to have dismissed the appeal for default. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the postal cover through which the said notice was sent to the petitioner’s counsel, which evidences that the notice dated 11.5.2006 was dispatched on 20.5.2006 i.e. the date on which the order dismissing the appeal for default was passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Heard Sri Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Ashrith, learned counsel for the respondent. The subject matter of the proceedings is an extent of Ac.8.25 guntas in survey No.79 of Tulekalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. While the respondent claims to be the son of the protected tenant, the petitioner claims to be a purchaser from the original land holder under registered sale deed dated 20.4.1981. Before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, the petitioner had not been given any notice before order dated 31.7.1991 in file No.A/186/1982, under Section 32 of the Act, was passed directing the petitioner to restore possession of the above land to the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act which was numbered as Case No.F2/4790/91. The order of the Appellate Authority no doubt records the previous adjournments in the matter but what is important is “whether the notice of hearing of the appeal dated 11.5.2006 fixing 20.5.2006 as date of hearing of the appeal was received by the petitioner before 20.5.2006 or not ? ”. The petitioner asserts that the said notice dated 11.5.2006 was infact dispatched on

20.5.2006 the date on which dismissing the appeal was passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and that if it was dispatched on 20.5.2006, it is impossible for it to be served on the petitioner’s counsel on the same day and that even if it is served, it could not be possible for the petitioner’s counsel to appear on that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the postal cover in which notice dated 11.5.2006 was dispatched to the petitioner’s counsel and the said postal cover indicates that the said notice was dispatched on

20.5.2006. In view of this, it is inconceivable that the petitioner’s counsel would have received notice about the hearing of the appeal on the same day. Therefore, the petitioner’s counsel could not be found fault for not attending the hearing of the appeal on 20.5.2006 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Also no notice was sent to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner also cannot be blamed for not appearing before the Joint Collector on the said date. When the petitioner filed an application No.F2/4169/2006 seeking restoration of appeal, which was dismissed for default on

20.5.2006, citing the above reason, the Joint Collector casually dismissed the same simply saying that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to pursue the case and that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that notwithstanding what transpired before 20.5.2006, the fact remains that notice of hearing dated 11.5.2006 fixing 20.5.2006 as the date of hearing was dispatched by the Joint Collector on 20.5.2006 itself and would have been received by the petitioner’s counsel only subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner or his counsel did not have the notice of hearing of the appeal on 20.5.2006 at all as it did not reach them before that date. Therefore, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District ought to have restored the appeal which he had dismissed for default on 20.5.2006. For the above reasons, I hold that the order dated 26.9.2006 in case No.F2/4169/2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District refusing restore the appeal No.F2/4790/1991 is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. Therefore, the CRP is allowed the order dated 26.9.2006 in case No.F2/4169/2006 and order dated 20.5.2006 in file No.F2/4790/1991 are set aside. The application filed by the petitioner to restore the appeal stands allowed and the appeal is restored to file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The said Joint Collector shall issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties, give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases, and after hearing of both parties through their respective counsel, pass fresh orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the CRP stands allowed. No costs. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Kk/ dt: 14/12/2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP No.5313 of 2006 DATE 14-12-2012