SHAIK MAHMOOD JANI & OTHERS Vs. ADDL DIVISIONAL OFFICER LR-II-CUM-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAND REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners, who maintained I.A.No.478 of 2008 in the unnumbered appeal L.R.A. (SR) No.116 of 2007, having been unsuccessful by the impugned dismissal order, dated 01.03.2011, maintained the present Civil Revision Petition against the respondents viz., (i) The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, LR-II-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak (ii) The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Collectorate, Medak at Sangareddy (iii) The Tahsildar, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District (iv) Smt. Kulsum Bee, died per LRs (v) Syed Habeeb (vi) Syed Ghulam Dastagir (vii) Syed Siddique (viii) Syed Chand (ix) Syed Akhtar and (x) Syed Rafiq.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition impugning the order of the lower Courtare that the said order is unsustainable, contrary to law and probabilities of the case and the same is the outcome of non-appreciation in proper perspective. The lower Court should have seen that the petitioners are not parties to the Land Reforms Case in C.C.No.1178/NPR/75 and thereby, they have no knowledge about the order, dated 21.04.1993, passed by respondent No.1 till they came to know of the same on 08.10.2007 in filing the appeal before the lower Court, with no lapse of time therefrom, on 27.10.2007 and the appeal thereby filed is within limitation. However, the application to condone the delay sought for as an abundant caution irrespective of the Section 20(3) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) speaks the aggrieved party is entitled to file appeal from the date of communication of the order and since the petitioners are not parties before respondent No.1, no order was communicated to them; the appeal filed is well within time. The lower Court has not properly appreciated the same and wrongly dismissed the petition and thereby, the same is liable to be set aside. The petitioners claim is that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands bearing Survey No.51 to the extent of Ac.3.11 cents, Survey No.55 - Ac.15.58 cents, Survey No.57 Ac.10.80 cents, Survey No.58 Ac.13.09 cents, Survey No.59 Ac.4.98 cents, Survey No.33 Ac.14.03 cents, Survey No.52 Ac.19.36 cents, Survey No.40 Ac.15.01 cents and Survey No.56 Ac.11.36 cents, all situated at Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District, and that recently they came to know that the deceased respondent No.4 Kulsum Bee submitted a declaration in C.C.No.1178/NPR/75 and illegally included the properties referredof the petitioners and shown the extent of Ac.47.56 cents equivalent to 0.8617 standard holding as surplus and the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, LR-II (primary authority) accepted the said declaration in computing the holding by declaring the surplus, vide order dated 21.04.1993, and accepted the surrender of the land bearing Survey Nos.51, 55, 57, 58 & 59 totally admeasuring Ac.47.56 cents. The petitioners thereby filed the unnumbered appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 5287 days in filing the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same, whereas it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration on behalf of the official respondents 1 to 3 that the impugned order traces back to 1993, sought for setting aside in 2007/8, no way requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision for no proper grounds to assign within the paramteres of sufficient cause to condone the delay, and it is highly improbable to believe all of a sudden they came to know just before filing the case without even any basis as to how all of a sudden they came to know only on 08.10.2007, but for to create a cause in maintaining the unnumbered appeal with the delay condonation petition on 27.10.2007 and thereby, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed to avoid speculative litigation further.