Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 1st respondent-District
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8622 of 2008
O R D E R:
Admittedly, the petitioner was assignee of an extent of Ac.4.54 in Sy.No.725, situated at Venkatapuram village, B.Matam Mandal, Rajampet Division, Kadapa District, for the purpose of agriculture. While so, it is stated that without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity, the said assignment was cancelled under the Board Standing Orders by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, by proceedings dated 14.02.2006. It is stated that though the impugned order goes to show that a notice has been given, but in fact no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given prior to issuance of the impugned order. It is stated that sicne there was some threat of dispossession of the petitioner from the lands in question without even serving the order of the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 14.02.2006, setting aside the entries in the revenue records and even without canceling the assignment, the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer requesting him to furnish the copy of the order dated
14.02.2006 under Right to Information Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer furnished the said copy of the impugned order only on 19.02.2008, and immediately the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-District Collector, Kadapa on
Operative part
20.02.2008 along with an application for grant of stay. However, as there was no delay in approaching the appellate authority from the date receipt of the order, but the 1st respondent-District Collector calculated delay from the date of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, and hence an application to condone the delay was also filed. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioner in time and there was no proof of service of such order on the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 1st respondent-District Collector to entertain the appeal, if any filed by the petitioner on
20.02.2008, by condoning the delay, and consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Pending disposal of the said appeal, status quo, existing as on today with regard to possession as well as entries in the revenue records, shall be maintained. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 19.04.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // To 1 The Dist Collector Kadapa, Kadapa Dist 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajampet Kadapa Dist 3 The Tahsildar B.Mattam (M) Kadapa Dist SECTION OFFICER
3.2CCs to 4.2CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 1st respondent-District
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005.
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.