when notice was not served - delay of 20 years is immaterial = No notice was served on the petitioner while cancelling his possession certificate under A.P. Telegana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Appeal after 20 years after coming to knowledge - joint collector dismissed - is in valid = BHEEMAPPA, VS THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & 5 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2752&year=2013

when notice was not served - delay of 20 years is immaterial = No notice was served on the petitioner while cancelling his possession certificate under A.P. Telegana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Appeal after 20 years after coming to knowledge - joint collector dismissed - is in valid =
he filed an appeal before Joint Collector under Section 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1950, aggrieved by orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet dated 03.06.1980 by which previous ownership certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for land of     Ac.2-27 gts in S.No.950 of Hasnabad village, Kodangal Mandal was illegally cancelled without notice to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner.  If the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without notice to the petitioner, any amount of delay, may be of twenty years, has got to be condoned, since the impugned order is per se illegal.  Therefore, the Joint Collector should have made scrutiny of file No. C/2459/1980 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet after getting the said file, in order to find out whether the previous order dated 03.06.1980 was passed without notice to the petitioner.  Without doing the said exercise, the Joint Collector should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of there being delay of twenty years in filing the same.
CRP 2752 / 2013
CRPSR 23755 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
BHEEMAPPA,  VSTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & 5 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : ASHOK KUMARRESP.ADV. : SRINIVASA REDDY
SUBJECT: TENANCY REVISIONDISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

Civil Revision Petition No.2752 of 2013

ORDER:
This revision petition is sought to be filed against order of Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner on the ground of delay of twenty years.  The Joint Collector further observed that no substantial reasons were urged for condoning the said delay.
It is contented by the revision petitioner’s counsel that the order passed by the Joint Collector is without reason and superficial.  It is the petitioner’s contention that he filed an appeal before Joint Collector under Section 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1950, aggrieved by orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet dated 03.06.1980 by which previous ownership certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for land of     Ac.2-27 gts in S.No.950 of Hasnabad village, Kodangal Mandal was illegally cancelled without notice to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner.  If the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without notice to the petitioner, any amount of delay, may be of twenty years, has got to be condoned, since the impugned order is per se illegal.  Therefore, the Joint Collector should have made scrutiny of file No. C/2459/1980 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet after getting the said file, in order to find out whether the previous order dated 03.06.1980 was passed without notice to the petitioner.  Without doing the said exercise, the Joint Collector should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of there being delay of twenty years in filing the same.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar and remitting back the matter to the file of the Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar for disposal of the same according to law after doing the exercise indicated in this order.

___________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
24th July,2013.
Dv

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.