Skip to content


State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Penumatsa Venkata Raju - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 4010 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981AP22
ActsAndhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1947 - Rule 16(9); Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Sections 20(3)
AppellantState of Andhra Pradesh
RespondentPenumatsa Venkata Raju
Advocates:Govt. Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....1974 - rules require notice to be served personally or under certificate of posting - notice served on counsel - communication to counsel is no communication of notice contemplated under rule - held, limitation for filing appeal starts from date on which order has been communicated to parties as required by rule. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of.....order1. the only point that arises for consideration is whether service or communication to the counsel of the declarant is the proper service or communication to the party within the meaning of rule 16 (9) of the rules framed under the land ceiling act. rule 16 (9) reads under :'every notice or summons issued or order passed by the tahsildar, revenue divisional officer, district collector, tribunal or appellate tribunal, as the case may be, shall be served or communicated to the persons concerned either by personal delivery to him or where the above course is not feasible, by sending it by post under the certificates of posting to his address at the last known place of residence'.2. it is quite evident from the above rule that a particular mode has been prescribed by the statute and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only point that arises for consideration is whether service or communication to the counsel of the declarant is the proper service or communication to the party within the meaning of Rule 16 (9) of the Rules framed under the Land Ceiling Act. Rule 16 (9) reads under :

'Every notice or summons issued or order passed by the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall be served or communicated to the persons concerned either by personal delivery to him or where the above course is not feasible, by sending It by post under the certificates of posting to his address at the last known place of residence'.

2. It is quite evident from the above rule that a particular mode has been prescribed by the statute and non-compliance of the statutory rule would nullify the proceedings, this view has been taken by this Court on more than one occasion. My learned brother Madhava Reddy J. in K. Chmna Nagiah v. Spl. Tahsildar (LR), Markapur, (1977) 2 APLJ (Notes) 67: (AIR 1978 NOC 158) held that service on the counsel for the declarant is not a service at all. I am not persuaded to take a view at variance With the aforesaid observation. The provisions are mandatory. In the case before me admittedly, the fact is that communication was made to the counsel. Therefore, it is quite apparent, that there is no service or communication to the party as contemplated by the aforesaid rule. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, it is said to be after obtaining a copy of the order served on the counsel for the declarant. It cannot be considered as delay at all. In fact, the limitation starts from the time when the order made by the primary tribunal has been pro-perly served or communicated within the meaning of Rule 16 (9). Since that is conspicuous by absence, there is no starting point of limitation at all in this case.

3. The contention of the learned Gov-eminent Pleader is therefore reiected.

4. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //