IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8439 of 2001 Between: Smt. Palem Lalithamma, W/o. Late Sri P. Papa Rao naidu, C/o. Sri P. Suresh, Central Bank of India, 20/172, DC Road, Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dargarthi Mandal, Nellore. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order, direction or order, more especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading upto and inclusive of the order of the 1st Respondnet in CCLA's Ref.No.BCW3/33/2001, dt. 22-1-2001 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order of the 2nd Respondent in D.is.No.14180/90, dt. 30-8-1991 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner’s husband, an Ex-Serviceman, was assigned Ac.4-98 cents of land under the Ex-Servicemen quota. The assignment conditions required that the land assigned be brought under cultivation within a period of three years. On the ground that the petitioner and one Sri P.V.Ramana Reddy had both failed to cultivate the lands assigned to them, and had thereby violated the conditions of assignment, the assignments were cancelled. Since the petitioner’s husband had died in the interregnum, the petitioner and her neighbour preferred appeals to the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner, the contentions urged in both the appeals were based on identical factual circumstances. However, while the appeal preferred by Sri P.V.Ramana Reddy was allowed, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.No.1085 of 1993 complaining of discrimination. This Court directed the petitioner to prefer a revision to the first respondent-Commissioner of Land Revenue within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue to dispose of the same within three months thereafter. Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for petitioner, would state that, though his colleague had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue within the stipulated period, he had failed to obtain acknowledgement to that effect and, upon coming to know that the records of the first respondent did not reflect the revision having been preferred, he had entrusted the matter to another colleague of his by name Sri P.Srinivasa Rao who filed the revision papers all over again. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, by way of the impugned order, rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner and returned the papers to her on the ground that, while the order of this Court required the revision to be preferred within two months, it was, in fact, preferred much later. The Commissioner of Land Revenue further observed that his jurisdiction had been invoked even without exhausting the remedy of an appeal before the Joint Collector. Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the petitioner was represented by counsel, the Commissioner, before passing the impugned order, ought to have put the petitioner on notice and given her an opportunity of being heard either in person or through her counsel and that failure on his part to do so was in violation of principles of natural justice necessitating the impugned order to be quashed. Learned counsel would further submit that, if at all, it was his erstwhile colleague who was to blame and that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for a mistake on the part of her counsel. While the Commissioner may not have erred in holding that the revision was filed belatedly, it must be borne-in-mind that the petitioner is a widow of an ex-serviceman, the land was assigned to her husband under the ex-servicemen quota, that the State is duty bound to ensure that the interest of armed forces personnel, who have served the Nation with honour, are safeguarded after their retirement from service and that technicalities should not come in the way of the matter being heard on merits. Taking into consideration that the delay in preferring the revision is not on account of the petitioner but on account of her counsel, who was not vigilant enough to obtain an acknowledgement even though he claims to have filed the revision petition within the period of two months, I consider it appropriate to direct the first respondent to entertain the revision. While the delay could well have been condoned on terms, considering the fact that the petitioner is a widow, and her husband who was assigned the land was an ex- serviceman, I do not consider the necessary to mulct her with costs for the delay, if any, in filing the revision. It must also be borne-in- mind that, in the present case, this Court had earlier directed the Commissioner to entertain the revision and as such it was not open to him to have acted contrary thereto in relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Joint Collector. I deem it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the impugned order and direct the first respondent to entertain the revision, examine it on merits, more particularly the plea of discrimination, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is shall be open to the petitioner, if she so desires, to file any other documents before the first respondent, who shall, after putting the petitioner on notice and after giving her an opportunity of being heard either in person or through her counsel, decide the revision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this Court granted interim stay by its order dated 27-04- 2001 and the same is subsisting as on date, status quo as on today shall be maintained till the revision is finally disposed of by the first respondent. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th November 2008 CVRK