← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/5523/2015dismissed no costs

The State Of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt.P.Geetanjali

2016-01-20Sanjay Kumar2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5523 and 5797 OF 2015 C O M M O N O R D E R The State of Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2006 passed in C.C.No.1446/Nuzvid/75 by the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid. The said appeal was filed with the delay of 999 days and I.A.No.7 of 2011 was filed by the State to condone the same.

However, I.A.No.7 of 2011 was dismissed for default on 09.04.2013. The State, thereupon, filed I.A.No.1162 of 2014 in the appeal seeking condonation of the delay of 518 days in seeking restoration of the I.A. Simultaneously, I.A.No.1163 of 2014 was also filed for restoration of I.A.No.7 of 2011. Both the I.As. were dismissed by the Court below by common order dated 06.07.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the State is in revision under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

C.R.P.No.5523 of 2015 arises out of I.A.No.1162 of 2014 in I.A.No.7 of 2011 in L.R.A.No.__ of 2014, while C.R.P.No.5797 of 2015 relates to I.A.No.1163 of 2014 in I.A.No.7 of 2011 in L.R.A.No.__ of 2014.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Perusal of the common order passed by the Court below reflects that the subject applications were not even moved properly. The clerk of the Advocate filed the affidavit in support of the applications. Further, the reasons for the delay were put forth casually and no acceptable reason was forthcoming. The Court below took note of these aspects and dismissed both the I.As.

This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the cogent and wellreasoned order passed by the Court below.

The civil revision petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20th JANUARY, 2016 PGS