GORLE SANYASAMMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of first respondent in ATA No.9 of 1987 dated 24-1-1990 as arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) The landlords filed ATP No.22 of 1961 before Deputy Tahsildar, Anakapalli, under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, for eviction of respondents 3 to 8 tenants on the ground that they had committed default in payment of rents and the same was allowed on 21-11-1964. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants filed appeal in TA No.8 of 1965 which was allowed on 21-11-1971 by Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, setting aside the eviction. However, possession was taken over by the landlords in pursuance of the order in ATP No.22 of 1961. Later, the landlords filed writ petition in WP No.5592 of 1971 and obtained interim stay of the order in TA No.8 of 1965. Subsequently, the said writ petition was dismissed on 23-4-1975. The respondents filed an application under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure for restitution and the same was dismissed as time barred as the tenants have not shown that there was stay throughout to save the period of limitation. Against the said order of District Munsif, Anakapalli, the tenants filed appeal to the District Judge, Visakhapatnam in ATA No.9 of 1987 wherein the dismissal order was reversed on two grounds viz., E.P. was filed within time and that Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act.

(3.) Pursuant to the order of the Primary Tribunal, the landlords sold the property to the petitioners who are bona fide purchasers for the value under registered sale deeds and the petitioners were not made parties in the execution proceedings, but they got impleaded in the appeal. In fact, a patta was granted earlier by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar but the same was reversed by the Commissioner for Survey, Settlement and Land Record and the enquiry is still pending. The petitioners submit that when there is no period prescribed for such application under the said Act, the residuary clause of limitation under the Limitation Act should be applied in which case the petition ought to have been filed within three years. In any case, the petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of laches. The tenants have not explained the extraordinary delay in filing the petition for restitution.