STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. PENUMATSA VENKATA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for consideration is whether service or communication to the counsel of the declarant is the proper service or communication to the party within the meaning of Rule 16 (9) of the Rules framed under the Land Ceiling Act. Rule 16 (9) reads under :

(2.) It is quite evident from the above rule that a particular mode has been prescribed by the statute and non-compliance of the statutory rule would nullify the proceedings, this view has been taken by this Court on more than one occasion. My learned brother Madhava Reddy J. in K. Chmna Nagiah v. Spl. Tahsildar (LR), Markapur, (1977) 2 APLJ (Notes) 67: (AIR 1978 NOC 158) held that service on the counsel for the declarant is not a service at all. I am not persuaded to take a view at variance With the aforesaid observation. The provisions are mandatory. In the case before me admittedly, the fact is that communication was made to the counsel. Therefore, it is quite apparent, that there is no service or communication to the party as contemplated by the aforesaid rule. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, it is said to be after obtaining a copy of the order served on the counsel for the declarant. It cannot be considered as delay at all. In fact, the limitation starts from the time when the order made by the primary tribunal has been pro-perly served or communicated within the meaning of Rule 16 (9). Since that is conspicuous by absence, there is no starting point of limitation at all in this case.

(3.) The contention of the learned Gov-eminent Pleader is therefore reiected.