SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39211

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
Mangali Srinivasulu – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Telangana – Respondent
WP/31308/2014



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.31308 OF 2014

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders dated 19.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 in F2/06/2014 - F2/IA-30/2013, whereunder the dealy of Six Years, Nine months and thirteen days (6Y-9M- 13D) in filing the appeal against the orders dated 14.09.2006 in File No.B/1185/2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, was condoned.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent No.3 cannot challenge the Occupancy Certificate granted in favour of the petitioners after lapse of Six years, Nine months and thirteen days. After receiving the notices in the delay petition the petitioners herein have filed their counter raising objections, however, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners herein in their counter, allowed the delay condonation petition without giving any reasons and therefore requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2014.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 fairly conceded that the respondent No.2 without giving any reasons passed impugned orders. The impugned order clearly shows that the respondent No.2 without considering the counter filed by the petitioners herein in the dealy condonation petition, condoned the dealy of Six Years, Nine Months and thirteen days in filing the appeal against the ORC granted in favour of the petitioners. In view of the same, the matter has to be reconsidered by the respondent No.2.

5. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2014 passed in F2/IA-30/2013 in Appeal No. F2/06/2014 and remanded back to the respondent No.2, with a direction to pass appropriate orders as per law, after hearing both sides in the dealy condonation petition, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.

6. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:06.11.2024 trr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top