Edula Venkatreddy v. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the petitioner :
Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu for
Sri Balraj Bodanker Counsel for respondents 1 and 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 2 and 3: None appeared The Court made the following
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Proceedings No. D5/2216/2001 dated 31.08.2004 of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Sri Balraj Bodanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before respondent No.1 questioning order dated 12.01.2001 passed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, confirming order dated 16.07.1999 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal. The subject matter of the revision pertained to the lands admeasuring Ac.2.28 guntas; Ac.6.22 guntas and Ac.4.36 guntas in Survey Nos.163; 164 and 165 respectively of Nandupally Village, Maheshwaram Mandal. The said revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by respondent No.1 and that order is impugned in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the mistake of the counsel engaged by the petitioner, he did not appear before respondent No.1 and that one month prior to the filing of the writ petition, his client came to know about the death of the counsel and that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to pursue his revision on merits before respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In his affidavit, the petitioner has stated that as there was no representation on his behalf when the revision was called, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and that he came to know about the death of his counsel one month prior to the filing of the writ petition and that he was able to get his case record back eight months after his approaching the Office of his Advocate and that on
05.01.2005, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the case was posted for hearing on 05.11.2001; 02.09.2003; 13.10.2003; 03.02.2004;
Operative part
08.06.2004 and 31.08.2004 and on none of those dates, either the petitioner or his counsel was present. This fact clearly establishes that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting his case. Even from the averments contained in the affidavit, as noted above, it is quite evident that the petitioner failed to approach this Court immediately after he has come to know about the dismissal of the case on 05.01.2005. He has filed this writ petition one year thereafter. From these facts, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not evinced any interest, whatsoever, in prosecuting his revision petition before respondent No.1 and exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence in favour of the petitioner. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th July, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Jul 2010. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.