M BALAKRISHNA Vs. SADANAPALLI MARIAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1992-2-31
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 21,1992

M.BALAKRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
SADANAPALLI MARIAMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GIRIJA BAI (DIED) BY L R VS. JAIWANTA [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH SINGH VS. DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Neeladri Rao, J. - (1.)Whether the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of order or the date of knowledge of the order in the writ petition, for computing the period of limitation under Rule 51 (1) of the Appellate Side Rules in preferring the Writ Appeal is the point that falls for consideration in pursuance of the objections raised by the Office. It will be convenient to refer to the facts, which are relevant before adverting to the point for consideration.
(2.)R-1 herein preferred the writ petition No. 14318 of 91 praying for issue of a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition (R-2 to R-4 herein) to grant patta in respect of Nine cents of land occupied by the writ petitioner in which he constructed a hut bearing Municipal No.11-2-22 in 'B' Ward with assessment No. 1 577of the Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. The appellant herein is impleaded as R-4 in the said writ petition. Even at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for R-1 to R-3 in the writ petition (R-2 to R-4 herein), the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following direction :
"The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam shall consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for the issue of patta in view of the long occupancy of the said Ac. 0-09 cents of land by the petitioner in 'B' Ward of Bhadrachalam Gram Panchayat with the hut bearing No 11-2-22 in 'B' Ward with assessment No.1577 of Bhadrachalam Gram Panchayat."
Being aggrieved of the said direction, this writ appeal is preferred.
(3.)The order in the writ petition is dated 19-11-1991, while the Memorandum of Appeal was presented on 18-1-1992. The Appeal was thus presented beyond 30 days from the date of the order in the writ petition. Rule 51 (1) of the Appellate Side Rules (for short the 'Rules') of this Court provides the period of limitation as thirty days from the date of judgment, decree or order for the appeal to be preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal. The Writ Appeal is an appeal preferred under the aforementioned clause. Rule 51 (1) of the Rules of this Court reads as under:
"51 (1) An appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, other than an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed or made by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the judgment, decree or order appealed from provided that the Court may in its discretion on good cause shown extend such period. 51 (2) to (5) ...............".
The literal or mechanical reading of the said Rule suggests that the appeal has to be preferred within 30 days from the date of judgment, decree or order appealed from; Of course, the said period can be extended on good cause shown. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the relevant expression in Rule 51(1) of the Rules has to be read as within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the judgment, decree or order appealed from.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.