THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.7370 of 2006 Dated: 03-02-2011 Between: Mahavir Singh ...Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Camp at Chevella Division and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.7370 of 2006 ORDER : Substantially, the writ petition is directed against the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 10-02-2006, dismissing Case No.F1/7192/2004, for default of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the property in survey Nos.176, 231, 233 and 235 of Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed, dated 14-03-1978 and claims to be in ownership and physical possession since then. He was also given a ryotwari passbook and claims to be paying taxes up-to-date. His name is also said to have been mutated in the revenue records by an order dated 21-12-1978. Having learnt that one Sri Mastan Rao obtained mutation on his name in the revenue records on 14-03-1999, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the proceedings dated 14-03-1999 whereby the name of Sri Mastan Rao was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the lands, claimed to be owned and in possession of the petitioner aforestated. It would appear that on 28-08-1990 succession was granted in favour of the legal heirs of Sri Balaram, S/o. Jogilal for succeeding to the ORC rights granted in favour of Sri Balaram. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 12-01-1994 impleading Smt. Saroja Bai & 9 others who were granted the succession rights of Sri Balaram. This appeal is stated to be pending. On 15-05-2001, petitioner represented to the Mandal Revenue Officer to demarcate the lands but to no effect. He filed a series of writ petitions not germane to the issues in this writ petition but, eventually, against the orders dated 21-01-1980 and 28-08-1980 granting occupancy right in favour of Sri Balaram in respect of the lands in survey Nos.176, 231, 233 & 235, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent herein. Admittedly, while the petitioner attended the hearing of the appeal scheduled on 03-02-2006, his counsel did not appear either in the forenoon or in the afternoon and, hence, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the 1st respondent on the ground of non-prosecution and for default. Since the valuable rights of the petitioner are involved and though the petitioner was remiss in not being adequately represented by counsel at the hearing he should be afforded an opportunity to pursue his appeal on merits. The petitioner or his counsel would be present and proceed with the appeal on a day fixed by the 1st respondent is an undertaking. The petitioner also undertakes to recompense for the negligence in pursuing the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Sri R. Mahender Reddy for the 17th respondent. There is representation on behalf of the other respondents. The writ petition is disposed of as follows; In the facts and circumstances of the case and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the 1st respondent on merits having regard to the value of the property in lis before the 1st respondent, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order dated 10-02-2006 of the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal bearing reference No.F1/7192/2004 for default on condition that the counsel for the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services, within a period of 2 weeks from today, in default the writ petition stands dismissed; Subject to the deposit aforesaid and upon proof of such payment before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent shall treat Case No.F1/7192/2004 as restored and shall dispose of the appeal on merits. The 1st respondent shall schedule a date for the hearing of the appeal and shall intimate the same to the petitioner. On the date so fined and intimated, the petitioner or his counsel shall appear without fail or demur and proceed with the appeal. In case of default of appearance by the petitioner or counsel on the date scheduled for such hearing of the appeal by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent may proceed with the case ex parte or dismiss the same for default as appropriate. The writ petition is dismissed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J February 03, 2011 ndr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.7370 of 2006 February 03, 2011 ndr