SUNDARAMMA DIED Vs. HARIJAN YELLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order passed by the District Revenue Officer in Case No.B7/5073/91, dated 26-6-1991. The revision petitioners were appellants before the Joint Collector. They are the purchasers from the pattedar. They questioned the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') in favour of the respondents. On the date of hearing the petitioners were absent. The Joint Collector considering the merits of the case held that the protected tenancy rights were subsisting and the land holder was having more than two family holdings as on the date of notification i.e., 1-1-1973 and therefore granting ownership certificate in favour of the respondents was quite lawful and does not suffer from any error. This final order was passed on 20-8-1987. Subsequently, the petitioners filed affidavit stating that the person who swore to the affidavit went on labour work to Maharashtra along with a contractor one Ramachandraiah, that other family members were illiterates, that they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only on 15-12-1990, got the certified copy on 1-2-1991 and that they came to know that the wife of the counsel appearing on their behalf was suffering from cancer and hence he also did not attend the Court on 20-8-1987 when the final order was passed dismissing the appeal. It is further stated in the affidavit that the appeal decided on merits in the absence of the appellants and their counsel is void ab initio and hence prayed to place the appeal for re-admission. However, there is no petition filed in regard to the prayer for re-admission. On that affidavit the order dated 26-6-1991 was passedholding that the appeal was decided on merits observing that the protected tenancy rights were subsisting and the land holder was having more than two family holdings as on the date of the notification and hence the order conferring ownership certificate under Section 38-A (sic. 38-E) of the Act was proper. It is observed that under Section 91 of the Act revision lies to the High Court against the final order passed by the appellate authority (Joint Collector) and that the limitation for preferring revision is 60 days from the date of the order. In this case the order was passed by the Joint Collector on 20-8-1987. The petition for revision is filed on 6-2-1991. There is abnormal delay in filing the application, etc. Aggrieved by the said order of Joint Collector, present revision is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order made in the appeal is opposed to Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C. and the appeal can be restored on a petition under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. since the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to tenancy cases also and hence the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

(3.) So far as the proposition that C.P.C. applies to tenancy proceedings also cannot be doubted. In this case the order passed by the Joint Collector in appeal by the petitioners herein seems to be illegal because when the appellants were absent the matter cannot be decided on merits. However, that is a final order which ought to have been questioned in revision before this Court. That was not done. The learned counsel submitted that the affidavit filed under Order 41 Rule 19 is maintainable etc.