S.R.Y.Lakshmana Dora, v. The State Of A.P.,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.223 of 2016 Date: 22.03.2016 Between:

S.R.Y.Lakshmana Dora, S/o late Sri Raja Mallu Dora, Aged about 80 years, Occu: Cultivation, D.No.7-9-9A, Sambamurthy Street, Ramaraopet, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

..... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (JA) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.223 of 2016

PC: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Petitioner is the appellant. Petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the Memo No.37979/JA.2/2014, dated 28.08.2012, where under his request for sanction of political/jagir pension was rejected.

2. Appellant claimed that his father late Raja Mallu Dora was Ex-Munsabdar of Thotapalli Estate, who died on 11.01.1995. His father was getting political pension since the year 1945. As a consequence to the demise of his father, as eldest son, petitioner is entitled to political pension. He, therefore, sought for declaration that he be treated as Ex-Munsabdar of Thotapalli Estate and pay the jagir/political pension from 12.01.1995.

3. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition holding that the political pension granted to his father is not heritable and as a consequence to the demise of the pensioner, it would not automatically devolve on the son of the pensioner and that it is not a pension in perpetuity.

4. Learned single Judge having regard to the fact that the father of the petitioner died as early as in the year 1995 and that writ petition is instituted more than three years after the rejection was made, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

5. Admittedly, writ petition is filed more than three years after the rejection and the claim relates to the year 1995. No material is brought on record to show that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in making a claim and that he is entitled to claim political pension as son of the earlier pensioner.

6. Therefore, we see no error in the decision of the learned single Judge warranting interference. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ appeal shall

stand closed.

___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 22.03.2016 kkm HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.223 of 2016 Date: 22.203.2016 kkm