Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Nadella Gowri on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.1 of 2018
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No.1536 of 2018
(Taken up through video conferencing)
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and others. .. Appellants
Versus
Nadella Gowri W/o. N.Manohar Naidu,
Aged about 52 years,
Occ: House wife, D.No.3-146-C-32-A,
Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle,
Chittoor District. .. Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. G.L.Nageswara Rao,
GP for Assignment.
Counsel for respondent : --
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 19.07.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Assignment, appearing for the appellants.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2018 is an application for condonation of delay of
177 days in preferring the connected appeal. The appeal is presented
against the order dated 15.12.2017 passed in a batch of writ petitions,
being W.P.Nos.41813, 41826 and 41833 of 2017, so far as it relates to
W.P.No.41826 of 2017.
3. The respondent/writ petitioner had filed the writ petition
assailing the action of the respondent No.5 therein in insisting No
Objection Certificate for registration of the sale deed in respect of the land
admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-43 1/3 out of Ac.3-65 in S.No.591-1 in
Kollabylu village, Madanapalle Mandalam, Chittoor District and refusing to
receive and register the sale deed in respect of the said land, on the
ground that the said property is in the prohibitory list.
4. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge, relying upon a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The Sub Registrar and
another vs. K.Guravaiah S/o. Chalamaiah and another, reported in
2009(2)ALD 250, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the
respondent No.2 therein to forthwith delete the subject land from the list
of properties prohibited for registration and also directed the respondent
No.5 therein to register the document presented by the respondent/writ
petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
and the Registration Act, 1908, within four weeks of the presentation of
the document by the respondent/writ petitioner. A cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) was also imposed to be paid by the
respondent No.2 therein to the respondent/writ petitioner and the writ
petitioners in the other two writ petitions for including the subject lands in
the prohibitory list circulated by him to the respondent No.5 under Section
22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, in spite of the above legal position.
5. Mr. G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader has not
assailed the order of the learned single Judge on merits, as it is submitted
by him that it is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. However, he
seeks to assail that part of judgment by which costs of Rs.10,000/- was
imposed on the appellant No.2 herein.
6. In the application for condonation of delay, at paragraph No.4,
it is stated that copy application was made on __.12.2017, certified copy
of the order was made ready and delivered on __.01.2018. It is stated
that their office was busy with "Janma Bhumi" and "Mavuru" programmes
during the month of January, 2018, special summary revision of electoral
rolls from 23.01.2018 to 14.03.2018 and construction of toilets under
Swacha Bharat Mission Programme during the months of March and April,
2018. It is also stated that the authorities were busy with the land
acquisition process for NHAI, housing programme and special drive on
Dotted Lands Act. It is further stated that when the appellant No.4 visited
the office of the learned Government Pleader, he was advised to challenge
the order made in the writ petition on the ground that there is fair chance
of success in the writ appeal. It is pleaded that due to aforesaid reasons,
there was a delay of 177 days in filing the appeal.
7. A perusal of the averments made in the application would go to
show that the appeal was filed on the suggestion of the learned
Government Pleader that the appellants have a fair chance of success in
the appeal.
8. Merely saying that the officers were busy, cannot be a ground
for condonation of delay, as even if, it is assumed they were busy in
conducting the various programmes, other works of the office including
taking steps in legal proceedings cannot be ignored. Officers are expected
to be busy in discharging their duties.
9. On due consideration, we find that no sufficient cause is shown
to condone the delay of 177 days in filing the present appeal, and,
accordingly, the I.A.No.1 of 2018 stands dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the I.A.No.1 of 2018, the writ appeal
is also dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
GM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.1 of 2018
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No.1536 of 2018
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 19.07.2021
GM
