IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18809 of 2005 Between: B. Narasimha Reddy … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J. Ashvini Kumar Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18809 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to set aside order dated 23.07.2005 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner to set aside dismissal order dated 26.02.2005 and restore the appeal to file. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 24 (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division in case No.J/1659/2000 in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.265, 266 and 270 admeasuring Ac.6.12 guntas of Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatam Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.02.2005 by respondent No.1. The application filed for restoration was dismissed by the impugned order, wherein the reason assigned is that the explanation for default is not satisfactory and that the restoration petition is filed five months after dismissal of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that respondent No.1 committed a serious error in rejecting the application on two grounds, both of which are erroneous. He invited my attention to the affidavit filed by Sri B.Narasimha Reddy, the petitioner herein and the appellant before respondent No.1, wherein he stated that on 26.02.2005 his counsel started for attending the case before respondent No.1, but as his vehicle gave trouble, he arrived a bit late and that by the time he reached the office of respondent No.1, the case was called and dismissed for non-representation. He further stated that the finding that the application was filed with a delay of five months is erroneous. He filed a copy of the affidavit filed for restoration, which contains the stamp of the Collectorate bearing “1/3” as the date of its receipt. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that respondent No.1 committed a serious error in rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal. The petitioner gave sufficient explanation for the absence of his counsel on the date of hearing and prima facie the stamp on the affidavit filed in support of the application shows that the same was filed within a few days of the dismissal of the appeal for default. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is restored to file of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the same on merits, after giving notice to both the parties. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.23927 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.06.2008 ES