ITHAGANI LACHAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1929 days in filing the restoration petition for seeking to set aside the default order dated 13.02.2007 passed in W.P. No. 33159 of 1997 and restore the writ petition. In support of the said petition, the petitioners filed affidavit, inter alia, stating that the writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, vide Proceedings in Case No. C3/JC/Ta/11/94, dated 20.10.1997 reversing the order made by the 2nd respondent. Mandal Revenue Officer, in Case No. B/2281/93 dated 04.04.1994, resuming the possession of the land from the petitioners to an extent of Acs. 8.00 in Survey No. 202 of Indurthy Village, Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

(2.) Along with the writ petition, the petitioners also filed WPMP. No. 38972 of 1997 seeking to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No. C3/JCTA/11/94 dated 20.10.1997, reversing the order of the 2nd respondent made in Case No. B/2281/93, dated 04.04.1994.

(3.) This Court on 11.12.1997, while ordering rule nisi granted interim suspension. Thereafter, on 13.02.2007 writ petition was dismissed for default, which came to the notice of the petitioners consequent to the notice dated 26.06.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar, which was received by them on 10.07.2012 asking them to appear before him on 14.07.2012. Immediately, after receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2012 and requested time and accordingly adjourned the matter to 28.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached their counsel on 22.07.2012 and produced the copy of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent and also application filed by the respondents 4 to 10, who are legal representatives of the 3rd respondent brought on record vide order dated 08.10.1998, before the 1st respondent on 26.05.2012. Immediately, after verification of the Court order, the petitioners' counsel informed that the writ petition was dismissed for default on 13.02.2007 and he advised the petitioners to file a restoration petition seeking to set aside the default order dated 13.02.2007 along with condone delay petition. For the above reasons, for filing the restoration petition, 1929 days of delay was caused. Therefore, the present condone delay petition has been filed.