HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 19-4-2010 C.R.P. No.5492 of 2006 Between: Kongale Susheela. …Petitioner. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Bandar, Krishna District and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5492 of 2006 ORDER: This Revision is filed at the instance of the 3rd party who was 1st respondent in the appeal in L.R.A.No.18 of 2000. The said appeal which was filed by the 1st respondent herein on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, was allowed under the impugned order dated 26.9.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner who is the 1st respondent in the said appeal seeks to make a claim to the extent of Ac.1.75 cents in S.No.493 of 2 of Yellamarru village. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her vendor received the aforesaid land as pasupu kunkuma on 21-12-74 and that her vendors father was allowed this land under a registered settlement deed dated 18-4-1960 marked as Ex.O.4 before the tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that under the aforesaid settlement deed, an extent of Ac.2.85 cents was settled on the father of the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner’s vendor gifted Ac.1.75 cents to his daughter/petitioner’s vendor, which in turn was purchased by the petitioner on 25-8-1982. The lower appellate Court, under the impugned order has rejected the contention and has treated the land as belonging to the declarant. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the lower appellate Court has ignored Ex.04 and has failed to verify that the land claimed by the petitioner forms part of item No.1 of the said Ex.04. 4. Learned counsel also submits that lower appellate Court has passed the order without hearing the petitioner herein. He pointed out that earlier the State had preferred L.R.A.No.18 of 2000 along with the application for condonation of delay and when the said delay was condoned, the declarant had preferred the C.R.P.No.619 of 2000 which was allowed. The delay petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the State has carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7007 of 2004 and by order of the Supreme Court dated 29-10-2002, the order in C.R.P.No.619 of 2000 was set aside and thereby the delay in preferring the L.R.A.18 of 2000 stood condoned and the appeal thereafter has been restored to file before the Lok Appellate Court and notices were issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner who was earlier appearing in the appeal. The paragraphs of the impugned order shows that in spite of several notices and paper publication, no one appeared for the 1st respondent. Hence the 1st respondent was set exparte. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had no notice of appeal having been restored before the lower appellate court and its hearing and in any case, the learned counsel states that the order on merits is passed which clearly shows that it is an exparte order and thereby, the petitioner is deprived of her extent of Ac.1.75 cents in R.S.No.493 of 2 in Yelamarru village. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Para 5 of the impugned order clearly shows that the order under appeal is exparte order and 1st respondent is said to have been served by paper publication. The learned counsel states that the petitioner has no notice of the said restoration of appeal and its hearing and had there been an opportunity, the petitioner would have established before the lower appellate Court that the land came to her is part of item No.1 of Ex.04. Learned counsel also points out that the lower appellate Court has considered Ex.04 but failed to notice the extent and the boundaries in the said Survey number. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to establish her case. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that the appeal before the lower appellate Court was restored only after Civil appeal filed by the State was allowed and earlier counsel who was appeared in the appeal before Lok appellate Court cannot be said to represent the petitioner after, restoration of the appeal. It is also not borne out by records as to whether the service of notice on the 1st respondent was due and sufficient. In any case, in the interest of justice, it would be proper that the petitioner is heard by the lower appellate Court while determining the said appeal and therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order impugned herein without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. Only with a view to afford an opportunity to the petitioner in the interest of substantial justice, impugned order is therefore, set aside. The L.R.A. 18 of 2000 shall stand remitted to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner herein accepts notice of the appeal before the lower appellate Court and shall file appearance of the counsel before the lower appellate Court on or before 30-6-2010 and in view of that, no notice is necessary in the appeal in so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. The lower appellate Court shall fix the date of hearing of the appeal and thereafter hear and determine the appeal in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, lower appellate Court shall issue notices to the 2nd respondent and hear and determine the appeal in accordance with law at the earliest. 9. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 19-4-2010 BO Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5492 of 2006 Dated 19-4-2010