High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SIIRAVA}I KUMAR -- WRIT PETITION NO: 24455 OF 20ll '!;. ',.' i7: a) # Between: Eomma Rajeswara Rao .,. S/o late Chinna Euchalu Aged 56 years occ: Business r/o Bonakal road, Khammam town, Khammam District.

1. The Joint Collector Khammam.

2. The Revenue Dtvtsional Offrcer Khammam. And Petitioner P,erg11alli Vanivijayalaxmi Wo late Neelakanta rao 56 years occ: household r/o Saiprabath- /c Yedulapuram(v) Khammam Rural(M) :ri mam District valli Nagabhushanam S/o late Neelakanta rao no.487 Clo Sk ltleerabee NTR nagar, igudem. Khammam RuraliM ) h mmam Distflct valli Venkataramana S/o lale Neelakanta Rao .ftat no.487 C/o Sk l\leerabee NTR nagar, nva tgudem Khamman' Ruraiil\,4) hammam District ,\.r i ripeddi Ramalaxmi W/o Har r/o'flat no 487 Clo Sk fleerabee NT . Danvatgudem. Kharnan- Rural' ltl r 'i:'Khammam District R nrga, Malladi Ananta Ralyalaxmr W/o Venkatakrrshna Srigjvasa Prasad aged 26 years occ employee r/o Saiprabath Nager. H/o Yedulapuram(v) rr-- Khammam Rural(fril) Khammam Drstrtct P.eravalli Pavani D/o late Neelakanta Rao Aged 25 years occ student r/o Saiprabath Nager, H/o YedLrlapuram(v) Khammam Rural(lM i Khamman.l Drstrict 2 Peravalli Anjani D/o tate Neetar#L rao Aged 24 years occ: Student r/o Saiprabath Nager, H/o Yedulapuram(v) Khammam Rural(M) Khammam District. @ Peravali Jogi Sai Raghuram S/o late Neelakarta rao Aged 23 years occ: employee in lClCl r/o Saiprabath Nager, H/o Yedulapuram(v) Khammam Rural(M) Khammam District. 1 1. Sistala Udayalaxmi Wo late Surya Prakash llastri Aged 62 years occ: Household; r/o H.No 8-8-23. Brahmana Bazaar, Khammam town, Khammam District '12. Sistala Venkata Yaka Rama Krishna Sastry S/o late Surya Prakash Sastri aged 44 yeats Occ: Auditor, r/o H. No.8-8-23, Brahmana bazaar Khammam town, Khammam District

13. Thatabatla Bhanumathi D/o late Surya Prakasl' Sastry Wo Venkataramana aged 42 yeat occ Houserrcld. r/o H. No. 3-124, Parimala colony, Vaddepa ly \n/arangal District.

14. Pendyala Umasavithri D/o late Suryaprakash Sastry Wo Seshendra babu aged 39 years occ Ho-s;ehold r/o i-1. No. 5-1-123 Old no.5-1-52, Kavrrar na::rr Khammam town, Khammam Distnci

15. Anumala Vasantha Rama D/o late Surya Pral:,rsr Sasl:y Wo Phanibushana rao aged 34 years occ Fc rsehc d r/o Flat no. 102, Vishal towers. Chytanya nac.r' lndranagar colony, Khammam town Knamnr3:r lrst

16. Sistala Kiran Kumar S/o late Surya Prakasl' lrasir Aged 32 years occ. Tax consultant r/o H No 8 3 23 Brahmana bazaar, Khammam town. Khamm:r'r Jrst ;@dl) @@t Peravalli Ramakrrshna murthy M/o late Pera\'? Venkatalaxmamma aged 77 years occ Rtd ,: rncloyee r/o H. No.9-9-'131, Brahmana bazaar Khamr-erm town Khammam District Peravalli Seshagiri rao S/o late Laxmi Narasi.nha Rao Aged 48 years occ. employee and agnculturc r/o H. No.9-9-131, Brahmana bazaar Khamr^-:r1' to,.'./n Khammam District. Respcndents 3 Petition under Article 226 of te Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the respoMent no. 1 in l.A. No. 5/2010 dated 7-4-m11 filed to coMone the delay of 8,66 days in filing the appeal under sec. 10 of A.P. (AT) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955 against the order of respondent no.2 dat'ed n.O8.2Co7 as illegal , arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the satd order l.A. NO: 2OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 520 41 0F 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may b€ pleased to set aside the order of dismissal against the respondent Nos. 3,7,8,9,10,17 and 18 dt. 16-4-2015 and restore the same against the said respondents also l.A. NO: 1OF 2011(WPMP. NO:300 35 0F 201't) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of order passed by the respondent No.2 in file No. A2l1054/06 dated 20.O8 2ool Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3to18: -- The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24455 of 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner an(l lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for responcl(.nl Nos.1 and 2 With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for dispt sal. 2 This writ petition has been filed seeking the follou inr; L)raver:- "to dcclare the order pasxd by the respondcnt No.1 ur t.A.No.5 oi 2010 rlated 07.04.201,1 fled to condone the delay o.f 866 tLry, in [iltng the tppeal under Sec.10 of A.P. (A.T) Abolilion of Inams ,\t t. l9ri gnLnst tlt ortler of resporulent No.2 dated 20.08.2007, ns ;iiL,:!rl, nrbitrnry, contrary to record nnd. oiolatiue of principles of tutttrrr,l lttstil and consequently set asitle the snid order." I Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that thc rL\lr()n(l('nt l,los.3 to 10 have filetl pctition against respondent Nos.11 to 13 for ll ant ot Occupanc-v' llights certificate (ORC) in respect of total land admeas.rrrnll Ac.75.31 gts in Sr .No.55 of Dhamsalapuram Village, Khamrnam UrL.,r r lNl) ol Khantnr.tm l)istrict urrder Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 o{ A.P. (T.A) A[r,,lr rion oi Inarns Act,

1955. 'fhereaftcr, respondent No.2 issued notices to all thr.ot'cup.rnts. IItrrce, thc petitioner had filed application for grant of ORC [(),u] e\tcnt of Ac.6-22 i;ts. l{owevcr, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitr.,rrlr's claim ancl oir[, rrrtlct. dated 20.08.2007, issued OI(C in favour of resl'r,rrr.l1'111 Nos.J to 10. Aggrievecl by tl're order dated 20.08.2002 petitiorrcr ti t.tl ap1-.eal bctorc resPondcnt No.1 along with I.A.No.S of 2010 i.c., applr,:,ltr()tl t() condon(,tho rtt'lar trl tllT tl.rvs (from 19.09.2007 to 22.07.201O) in filirr.r llrt. app.rc.1l .rnrl thc 2 respondent No.l aide order dated 07.04.2071, dismissed the I.A.No.S of 2010. Challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2077in I.A.No.5 0f 2010, this writ petition is filed.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the parfies were trying to settle the issue and when there was no response from the respondents and there was delay in compromise, petitioners filed an appeal along with I.A.No.S of 20.1,0. It is further subrnitted that the respondent No.1 without stating any substantial reasors had passed impugned order dated 07.04.201.1. and dismissed I'A'No.S of 2010 and pra-v this Court to set aside the same and direct the respondent No.1 to considcr the pp5i'611g.,s case and pass orders in a time bound period.

5. l,earned Assistant Government pleatler for Rcvenue appearing for respondent Nos'I and 2 submits that the r('sp().ire.t No.1 issued notice on 22!1"2071' and though reasonabre time r'vas grantccl, petitioner fa ed to explain reasoru for delay in filing the appoal. [{t.cc, respondent No.1 oidr order dated 07.O4.2Oll dismisscd the LA.No.::r or 2010. 6 Sistala Surya prakasha Heard and perused the material a'ailabrc trr.r rr.c.rc1. Upo. perusar, it is notice that the peHtioner at paragraph No.{ in r.r'rit aftidavit stated that one Sri Rao, amicabl' r.r,as trr ir.rg to settlc the issue between the parties and in view of such ongoir-rg scttlcment, thc prgti1i111r1_1 failed to fite appeal within time and when there was no rcsponse frorn the respondents, the petitioner filed appeal along with I.A.No.5 of 2{)10. 1 J t

7. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of tl.re opinion that the respondent No.1 without hearing to the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2011in I.A.No.S of 2010 and the samc is liable to be set aside, hence, the order dated 07.04.2C)11. is hereby set aside and thc mattcr is remanded back to respondent No.1 to consider the matter afrcsh. Accortirngly, this writ petition is disposed of diricting the rcspondent No.1 to consitler the petitioner case and after giving fair opportunitl, of hearing kr all the concerned parties, the respondent No.1 shall pass appropriatc orders strictly in accordance u,ith law, as expeditiouslv as possible anri communicate the said decision to the petiti,rner. It is maclc clcar that this (lourt has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for thc rcspondent No.1 to verify the true facts and pasl; orders.

8. With tho above directiory this writ petition is disposctl o[. Mist-ellancous applications, if any pending, shall stand cltsed. No ortlt:r as to //TRUE COPY// SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN {qqsro*, REGISTRAR ts ECTION OFFICER I The Joint Collector, Khammam The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. On" Cb io SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate toqqcl f*o CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUTI ohe CC to IUs. K SITA RAM, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 BM w LS HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 -a-' /:.,r,,. .a- t.? l,+ 2:I trP [6 ORDER WP.No.24455 of 2011 \- ar- '' t:- .,! ...-' .. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q .dd ffu: Y'"-