IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 532 of 2006 Between: 1 Gali Anjanaiah, S/o.Late Gali Pochaiah, Gali Pochaiah, S/o.late Veeraiah (died per LRS) R/o.1-84, Dargah Hussaini Sha Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal R.R.District. 2 Gali Yadaiah, S/o.late Gali Pochaiah, Hindu R/o.H.No.1-84, Dargah Hussaini Sha Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 3 Gali Laxman, S/o.Gali Pochaiah, Hindu R/o.H.No.1-84, Dargah Hussaini Sha Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Gali Chandrapal, S/o.Gali Pochaiah, Hindu R/o.H.No.1-84, Dargah Hussaini Sha Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 5 Gali Vingeshwar S/o.Late Gali Pochaiah, Hindu R/o.H.No.1-84, Dargah Hussaini Sha Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Gali Gangaiah (died per LRs) 3 Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o.Late G.Jangaiah, R/o.H.No.2-67, Angadi Bazar, Dargah Hussaini Shah Ali Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 4 G.Mallesh (died per LRs) R/o.H.No.2-67, Angadi Bazar, Dargah Hussaini Shah Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal R.R.District. 5 G.Suryakala w/o.late G.Mallesh R/o.angadi Bazar Dargah Hussaini Shah ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 6 G.Narasinga Rao S/o.Late G.Jangaiah R/o.H.No/2-67 Angadi Bazar, Dargah Hussaini Shah Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 7 G.Saatyanarayana, s/o.Late G.Jangaiah, R/o.H.No.2-67 Angadi Bazar, Dargah Hussaini Shah Ali, Seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 8 G.Veera Swamy s/o.Late G.Jangaiah, R/o.H.No.2-67Angadi Bazar Hussaini Shah Ali, seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District./ 9 G.Swamy s/o.Late Veeraiah R/o.H.No. 105/2Angadi Bazar Hussaini Shah Ali, seri Lingampally Mandal, R.R.District./ 10 Smt.Talari Mallamma W/o.Mallesham R/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Memo No.D5/P5/30/2005, dt.29.12.2005 issued by Joint Collector, (1st respondent) R.R.District, the respondent wherein he refusing to condone the delay of set aside the abatement order dt.28.3.2003 and Memo No.D5/P5/30/2005 dt.29.12.2005 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contrary to the procedural laws and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.ATCHUTANANDA DONDETI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents 2 to : Mr.P.Shiv Kumar. The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the 1st respondent – Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Memo No.D5/P5/30/2005 refusing to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the revision petition, which was dismissed as abated. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late Gali Pochaiah filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.32/E, 33/E, 34/E, 34/EE, 55/E, 63/A etc., totally admeasuring Ac.7.18 guntas situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Some of the respondents herein filed a suit being O.S.No.93 of 1995 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession. On the death of their father, without their knowledge, the defendants filed a letter before the Joint Collector stating that their father died and basing on the said letter, the revision petition was dismissed. It is their case that they are illiterate and have no knowledge about the pendency of the revision proceedings before Joint Collector and after coming to know about the same, they filed a petition on 27.10.2005 before the Joint Collector to set aside the abatement order along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the said petition. By the impugned order, the said petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is passed by the 1st respondent without considering the reasons explained by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners that they have no knowledge about the abatement order, the material produced by both the parties have to be looked into. A perusal of the material shows that the respondents in the revision petition filed a memo on 22.7.2003 before the Joint Collector stating that the revision petitioner died and also enclosed a paper publication in proof of the said statement and basing on the said letter, the revision petition was dismissed as abated. Thereafter, on 27.10.2005 the legal heirs of the said Pochaiah viz., the petitioners herein filed a petition before the 1st respondent to restore the revision petition along with a delay condonation petition on dismissal of which the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents produced before this Court the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the 1st petitioner herein who is the legal heir of late Gali Pochaiah filed before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District on 9.9.2004 in O.S.No.93 of 1995. A reading of the said affidavit clearly indicates the knowledge of the petitioners about the pendency of the revision petition before the Joint Collector and that the matter was posted for hearing. Subsequently the 1st petitioner was cross examined on 12.8.2005 wherein he has admitted about the pendency of the revision before the Joint Collector. Thereafter, he has filed the restoration petition on 24.12.2005. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they have no knowledge about the pendency of the revision petition before the Joint Collector till 24.12.2005 cannot be accepted. Coming to the contention of the petitioners that the they are illiterate and, therefore, not aware of the proceedings also cannot be accepted in view of sworn affidavit of the petitioner stating that he is an employee. He has also signed the affidavit. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Joint Collector. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.7.7.2008 msv ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 2 CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 3 2CD copies