Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1486 (AP)

B. Rajakishan Reddy v. State Of A. P.

2003-12-01

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mahipathi Rao, Counsel representing the Revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land ceiling. ( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision petitioner aggrieved by an order made in I. A. No, 381/95 in L. R. A. (SR) no. 511 /95 on the file of II Additional District judge, at Ranga Reddy District. The application was filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 r/w. Section 151 C. P. C to condone the delay of 893 days in preferring the Appeal from the date of knowledge i. e. , from 11-5-1993 against an order dated 2-4-1977 in C. C. No. 3140/75 and 3141/1/75 of Land Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy district. Though it is stated that the delay is 823 days, ultimately as per the calculation, the delay is more than 18 years. The reasons explained are that the declarant had given false information and managed to get deletion of the said extent of land and on the other hand the declarant himself was in possession and was personally cultivating the said land and the said file of M. R. O. was misplaced in the files of the office and after an elaborate search the same had been traced out recently and handed over to the Assistant government Pleader for preferring the appeal and hence there is delay of 893 days. The learned Judge allowed the application subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 1000/- in favour of the District Legal Services Authority on or before 10-6-2003. Elaborate submissions were made by both the Counsel. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact there is wrong calculation and there is no question of the date of knowledge and hence the delay in fact is more than 18 years. But however, certain days had been specified by the government. The Counsel placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned G. P. for land Ceiling had contended that public interest is involved and the object of the legislation also may have to be kept in mind while dealing with matters of this nature. The learned counsel further contended that since fraud vitiates everything, this is a case where the delay may have to be condoned and the Appeal has to be heard on merits. The learned counsel further contended that since fraud vitiates everything, this is a case where the delay may have to be condoned and the Appeal has to be heard on merits. The Counsel also had placed strong reliance on P. Satyanarayana v. The Land Reforms tribunal, Mahabubabad and others and had contended that a Court or a Tribunal cannot review its own order or Judgment unless there is a specific statutory provision providing for the same, but however, a Court or a Tribunal has inherent powers to recall orders obtained by practicing fraud on it. Hence, there is no question of the Court becoming/functus officio because it retains the jurisdiction to recall such orders. Reliance also had been placed on Digambar Rao and another v. Govt. of A. P. Through the Authorised officer (Land Reforms), Nizamabad. ( 5 ) THERE cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to this aspect that fraud vitiates everything. Here is a peculiar case where the self-same question was raised and settled as Issue No, 3 and decided by the land Reforms Tribunal. Hyderabad, South, in C. C. No. 3140 and 3141/1975. It is pertinent to note that when a question by way of issue had been raised, it is immaterial whether the reasons recorded in relation thereto are sufficient or not, but the fact remains that the said question was raised. The same question cannot be again reagitated stating that on the ground of fraud, the party is entitled to prefer appeal after an inordinate delay of more than 18 years. This would be definitely not only unjust, but would also be inequitable in my considered view. It is needless to say that in case the grounds are available to invoke other remedies under a particular Legislation, this Court cannot prevent the same. But however, this Court is concerned with the condonation of delay. Definitely, I am satisfied that such inordinate delay, especially on a ground which in fact had been raised and settled as an Issue and answered by the tribunal, cannot be condoned. In view of the same, the Court below had committed an illegality in condoning the inordinate delay. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.