IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.1879 of 2014 BETWEEN Balemoni Narsimha.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (SS.l)Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. K. SOMESWARA KUMAR – R5 to R10 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the orders of the Joint Collector in Case.No.D1/52/2009 and File No.D1/3041/2009.
2. The aforesaid revision petition was filed by six petitioners against the petitioner herein and the said revision petition was allowed on the ground that a civil suit, O.S.No.66 of 2006 filed by the father of the petitioner herein for partition and separate possession was pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar wherein the plaintiff therein had sought 1/3rd share in suit schedule property. The Joint Collector, therefore, was of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the Revenue Divisional Officer was considered and disposed of without noticing pendency of the civil suit aforesaid and as such, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was set aside. In view of that, the revision petition was allowed and petitioner herein was advised to approach the civil Court in the said suit for redressal of his grievance. The said order is questioned by the petitioner herein, who was respondent before the Joint Collector.
3. Petitioner stated in the affidavit and learned counsel for the petitioner also filed an additional affidavit of the petitioner along with WPMP.No.3449 of 2014 wherein it is stated that the said civil suit was dismissed for non- prosecution as early as on 08.12.2009 and has since not been restored. A copy of the order of the civil Court disposing the suit for non-prosecution is also appended to the additional affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Someswara Kumar appearing for the contesting respondents also confirmed that the suit was never restored and as such, the order of dismissal aforesaid has attained finality and as such, it is evident that the suit is no more pending. However, that fact was not brought to the notice of the Joint Collector.
5. It is evident from the above that the Joint Collector has not dealt with the merits of the revision in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the fact that the suit having been dismissed for non-prosecution, as referred to above, was not brought to the notice of the Joint Collector. Since the said suit does not exist, as on today, there is no reason as to why the Joint Collector should not entertain the revision petition and dispose it of, on merits, in accordance with law. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the revision shall stand restored before the Joint Collector, who shall deal with the same on merits after notice to both parties and shall decide the same, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Status quo with regard to possession of the parties, as was existing pending revision petition before the Joint Collector, shall continue pending final disposal of the revision petition, as directed above.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 2, 2014 DSK