further urge that the order of the Joint Collector suffers from illegality, in that the Joint Collector failed to correctly understand the law, and erroneously ... before the Joint Collector, respondents 4 to 30 approached the Joint Collector and filed an application to treat their application as revision under Section
revision is
entertainable by the Joint Collector. Hence, it follows that the Joint Collector
had rightly entertained the revision and issued notices. The writ petitioners ... this Court,
the exercise of suo motu revisional powers and entertaining the revision by the
Joint Collector, after a lapse of about 49 years
revision is
entertainable by the Joint Collector. Hence, it follows that the Joint Collector
had rightly entertained the revision and issued notices. The writ petitioners ... this Court,
the exercise of suo motu revisional powers and entertaining the revision by the
Joint Collector, after a lapse of about 49 years
that in the
said Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner (Joint Collector) had stated that
the Order condoning the delay dated 21.01.1982 and the Final Order ... Joint Collector is not maintainable inasmuch as
the said Joint Collector does not have the authorization from the Government
to file the said Revision Petition
that in the
said Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner (Joint Collector) had stated that
the Order condoning the delay dated 21.01.1982 and the Final Order ... Joint Collector is not maintainable inasmuch as
the said Joint Collector does not have the authorization from the Government
to file the said Revision Petition
misplaced in the office the Joint
Collector and the order passed by the Joint Collector
in ROR proceedings. During the pendency of the
suit ... Joint Collector and therefore the petitioner obtained
certified copy thereof and also copy of orders passed
by the Joint Collector in ROR Revision proceedings
parties to the proceedings before the Joint Collector. In reply to the notices issued by the Joint Collector calling upon the respondents ... order passed on 5.3.2001 by the Joint Collector, inter alia, holding that the Joint Collector had no revisional power under Section 9 in relation
been filed and there
is no justification for the Joint Collector to invoke the revisional powers
after such length of time of passing ... concerned, Section 9 of the ROR
Act under which the Joint Collector exercised revisional power provides
as follows:
9. Revision - The Collector may either
Pusala Venkataiah and
others ;
vi) Basireddy Rukminamma v. Joint Collector, Kadapa and
others ; and
vii) Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another v.
D.Narsing ... inordinate delay and latches and whether
Joint Collector erred in entertaining revision after long lapse of
time and altering revenue records in their favour
Thereupon, respondents 1 to 12
filed a revision before the Joint Collector. The revision was
allowed through the impugned order.
In the aforementioned factual background ... initiated such steps,
viz; by filing appeal before the Joint Collector, and
thereafter a revision before this Court; but was not
successful. Thereby, the certificate
