Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
B Indiramma, W/O.Late B.Rajareddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition allowed without costs. (Para 1 , 15) |
| 2. claim petition rejected for being belated. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. violation of natural justice in rejection. (Para 4) |
| 4. counterarguments against petitioners' claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. justification of delay rejection requires application under limitation act. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. court's discretion to condone delay without formal application. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. remanding case back to authorities for reconsideration. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"…….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings, Endorsement made in L.Dis.F2/1937/2022, dated 29.09.2022 on the file of the Court of the Joint Collector-Cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, void, malafide, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 violative of Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the constit
The court affirmed that the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act, allowing claims to be considered on merits despite procedural delays, emphasizing judicial discretio....
Substantive rights granted under relevant agricultural legislation cannot be challenged through procedural claims, especially after attaining finality through multiple Authorities.
The court established that the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
Point of Law- Section 11 (a) of the Act it is clear that every ryot who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act has to fulfill the following requirements.(i) the land claim....
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a mutation due to the petitioner's failure to justify a delay of over 39 years in filing an appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely ....
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The Director of Survey and Settlement lacks jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 5(2) for an appealable order, as per Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
