POCHI REDDY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VIKARABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction seeks a Mandamus to declare the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.C/1675/00 dated 6-9-2003 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same. In fact the petitioner has to seek a writ of Certiorari and not a Mandamus as prayed by him.

(2.) The petitioner who obtained an order for validating an unregistered sale deed from the Mandal Revenue Officer by an order dated 25-1-1999 in file No.B/3082/98 under Section 5-A of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Aggrieved by the same, the original landlord-3rd respondent herein, from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased, filed an appeal under Section 5-B before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division with an application to condone the delay of 482 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by enclosing a medical certificate issued from the doctor. Initially, the Revenue Divisional Officer condoned the delay by an order dated 10-12-2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25666 of 2002. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this court on 11-3-2003 stating that the first respondent being the appellate authority under Section 5-B of the Act has to exercise the discretionary power on the basis of the explanation offered and in the light of the settled principles of law. Accordingly, the order was set aside directing the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. On such remand, the first respondent issued notice to the parties, against which the petitioner filed an IA under Order 16 Rule 7 read with 151 CPC for summoning the Doctor who issued a certificate in favour of the third respondent for his alleged treatment to the third respondent and insisted for summoning the said doctor for cross-examining him. The Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dt. 6-9-2003, refused to summon the doctor for the reason that the circumstances explained by the appellant for the delay caused in filing the appeal have been sufficiently explained, more so, the petitioner who obtained the validation of sale deed on a fictitious document and showing the third respondent pattadar as dead when in fact it is not so and accordingly refused to summon the doctor and directed the advocate to make his submissions on the main appeal for which, the counsel refused to put forward his arguments on the main appeal. After verifying the records, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer which order is now under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that unless the delay is properly explained by the third respondent for not filing the appeal in time, the Revenue Divisional Officer committed an error in allowing the application filed for condoning the delay on surmises and conjectures. The reasons put forward by the Revenue Divisional Officer for allowing the delay condonation petition and appeal is illegal and not sustainable as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Shauqin Singh v. Desa Singh. He accordingly contends that unless the doctor who issued certificate under whom the third respondent underwent treatment is examined, the delay cannot be condoned, but the Revenue Divisional Officer not only condoned the delay but also allowed the appeal, which suffers from incurable legal infirmity and the same cannot be sustainable.