MOHD ANEESUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions, some filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and some under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, arise out of the common order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, in seven cases, viz., Case Nos.F1/3929/2013, F1/4265/2013, F1/4422/2013, F1/4423/2013, F1/4424/2013, F1/4427/2013 and F1/5278/2013.

(2.) The appellants in each of the aforestated cases before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, were different, but respondents 1 to 12 in Case No.F1/3929/2013 figured as respondents 1 to 12 in all the other appeals also. In the first instance, CRP Nos.1434, 1436, 1437, 1463, 1464 of 2017 and CRP (SR) No.31709 of 2016 were filed by respondents 1 to 12 in the said appeals through Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel, assailing the common order passed therein. CRP No.1434 of 2017 arose out of Case No.F1/4427/2013, while CRP No.1436 of 2017 arose out of Case No.F1/5278/2013, CRP No.1437 of 2017 arose out of Case No.F/4265/2013, CRP No.1463 of 2017 arose out of Case No.F1/3929/2013, CRP No.1464 of 2017 arose out of Case No.F1/4422/2013 and CRP (SR) No.31709 of 2016 arose out of Case No.F1/4423/2013. No civil revision petition was filed in so far as Case No.F1/4424/2013 is concerned.

(3.) Significantly, the petitioners in these cases, respondents 1 to 12 before the Joint Collector, filed these revision petitions through their purported General Power of Attorney (GPA), K. Ashok Kumar, s/o late Pochaiah. However, when these revision petitions were taken up for consideration on 02.12.2016, it was noticed that the application in each of the cases, seeking grant of leave to the GPA holder to file the revisions, was supported by an affidavit filed by K. Ashok Kumar, the purported GPA himself. The matters were accordingly adjourned to enable the principals to file their affidavits supporting the leave applications, so that permission could be granted to the GPA to represent them in this litigation. However, the petitioners, in their own wisdom, chose to file miscellaneous petitions in each of the CRPs on 16.12.2016, 21.12.2016 and 22.12.2016 seeking to withdraw the applications filed in each of the revision petitions for grant of permission to the GPA to represent them so as to enable them to pursue the revisions in their individual capacities. These miscellaneous petitions were ordered by this Court on 16.02017 and the earlier miscellaneous petitions seeking permission for the GPA to represent them were dismissed as withdrawn. After this development, these civil revision petitions were yet to be listed for hearing on admission and interlocutory petitions.