WP/26781/2006 of Shakuntalamma W/o Dattatreya Vs The Joint Collector, on 26 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner herein filed an application before thejurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Narayanpet,Mahaboobnagar District, for grant of ownership certificate underSection 38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1950 (the Tenancy Act, for brevity) in respect of landadmeasuring Acs.19.19 guntas in survey No.458, Acs.0.09 guntas insurvey No.619 and Acs.3.20 in survey No.620 situated at Neradgomvillage of Maganoor Mandal in Mahaboobnagar District. The RDOgranted ownership certificate in Proceedings NO.E/1535/75, dated24.7.1975. Similar certificate was also issued in favour of four others. Aggrieved by the same, Sharanamma; predecessor in interest ofrespondents 2 to 7 herein – preferred appeal before the Joint Collector,under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act. The appeal was allowed on14.4.1980 setting aside the order of the RDO insofar as landcomprised in survey Nos.617, 459, 619 and 620 is concerned and theappeal insofar as grant of ownership certificate in favour of others isconcerned, was dismissed. The petitioner herein moved anapplication purportedly under Order XLI Rule 21 of Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 (CPC) to rehear the matter. She alleged that initiallyappeal filed by Sharanamma was dismissed for default on 26.5.1978and that subsequently the same was allowed on 14.4.1980 e x parteand that petitioner herein did not receive any notice from the JointCollector. She also alleged that the land was acquired forsubmergence under Sangambanda Balancing Reservoir, that when she made a claim for compensation, she received proceedings dated24.3.1992 from the Land Acquisition Officer informing the objectionraised by second respondent regarding payment of compensationpayable to him for the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner came toknow about the order of the Joint collector dated 14.4.1980. The firstrespondent considered her application marked as No.F1/84/2005 anddismissed the same on 04.3.2006. This order is assailed in this writpetition.

After hearing the learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court is ofconsidered opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Admittedly the Joint Collector allowed the appeal filed bySharanamma on 14.4.1980 and the petitioner moved application underOrder XLI Rule 21 of CPC after lapse of 25 years. The application wasabsolutely barred by time. However, the Joint Collector condoned thedelay and rejected the application on the ground that the order waspassed on merits and, therefore, the application for rehearing thematter cannot be accepted. The petitioner has annexed a copy of theorder in Case No.B7/57/79, dated 14.4.1980, passed by the JointCollector, which would show that it is certainly not an ex parte order. Dealing with the claim of the petitioer herein, the Joint Collectorobserved that the petitioner herein at the relevant time was shown tobe aged twenty years and not born at the time of commencement of theTenancy Act. Therefore, he drew an inference that the petitionerherein, who was then aged 22 years, was entered as protected tenantin a bogus and manipulated manner. By any standards, the order ofthe Joint Collector dated 14.4.1980 cannot be treated as an ex parteorder. On principle of law, the application filed by the petitioner wasnot maintainable and the first respondent was right in dismissing theapplication.

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

_____________

December 26, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)YS