M. LAVA Vs. BUDIDHA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33515 of 2018.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the present writ appeal) have preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by an order dated 03.08.2018 and also consequential order dated 31.08.2018 passed in favour of the appellants before this court. The undisputed facts of the case further reveal that the land in question was sold by way of unregistered sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 5 in the present writ appeal) on 09.03.2000 and later on an order of regularisation was passed on 28.11.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The facts also reveal that the present appellants before this court have purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2012 and as the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the present writ appeal) started interfering with their possession on account of order dated 28.11.2006, a revision was preferred before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector has allowed the revision without hearing the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the present appeal). The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector. The fact remains that the revisional order, which was arising out of order dated 28.11.2006, was passed without hearing the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the present writ appeal).

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the present writ appeal has argued before this court that the revisional jurisdiction was exercised after a lapse of eleven years and the order passed by the Joint Collector is bad in law.