LINGALA VITTAL Vs. ADDITIONAL AGENT TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by the first respondent, vide Case No.A4/LTR/44/2008, dated 20.12.2008, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal filed against the judgment, dated 15.05.2007, passed by the second respondent, whereby the second respondent ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.25 of an extent of Acs.7-24 guntas situated at Ruyyadi Village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.25 of an extent of Acs.7- 24 guntas situated at Ruyyadi Village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District, since the year 1969, on the basis of a simple sale deed executed by the fifth respondent in this writ petition. However, without taking into account of the said fact, the second respondent passed the judgment, dated 15.05.2007 in Case No.TW A2/143/97 ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner contends that he is an illiterate and was not aware of the said judgment and the petitioner came to know of such proceedings only for the first time on 27.03.2008, as no copy of the said judgment was served on him by the office of the second respondent. On the very next day, i.e. on 28.03.2008, the petitioner made an application for issuance of a certified copy of the said judgment and that the same was obtained on 28.04.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent questioning the judgment, dated 15.05.2007, passed by the second respondent, with a delay of 85 days from the date of knowledge of the judgment, on the ground that the petitioner fell sick from 20.06.2008 to 17.09.2008. However, without considering the above facts, the first respondent dismissed the appeal observing that the appeal was filed with a delay of one year two months and three days, which the first respondent ought to have condoned.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.