Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Bheemarasetty Sanyasi Naidu, on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
I.A.No.1 of 2018
in
WRIT APPEAL No.1637 of 2018
and
WRIT APPEAL No.1637 of 2018
(Through video conferencing)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District, and others ... Appellants
Versus
Bheemarasetty Sanyasi Naidu W/o. Sanyasi Rao
Aged 33 years, R/o.C.No.49-55-1, Vidyuth Nagar,
Visakhapatnam, and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, Govt.
Pleader for Assignment
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K. B. Ramanna Dora
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt:25.03.2021
(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)
Heard Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Govt. Pleader for
Assignment, for the appellants and also Sri Mr. K. B. Ramanna Dora,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Against the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned single
Judge in W.P.No.40315 of 2017, the State of Andhra Pradesh along with its
officials as appellants, has filed an appeal along with an application for
condonation of delay of 295 days. The application for condonation of
delay is registered as I.A.No.1 of 2018.
HCJ & CPKJ
I.A.No.1 of 2018 in
W.A.No.1637 of 2018 &
W.A.No.1637 of 2018
3. By the aforesaid order, while allowing the Writ Petition, the order
dated 27.05.2017 passed by appellant No.3 including the subject land in
the list of properties prohibited for registration under Section 22A of the
Registration Act, 1908, was set aside. Direction was also issued
to appellant No.3 to delete the subject land from such list and appellant
No.5 was directed to receive the documents presented by the writ
petitioners for the purpose of registration without reference to such
prohibitory list and to register the same in accordance with the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, within four weeks
of presentation of documents by the writ petitioners. Appellant No.1 was
also directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the writ petitioners.
4. At paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, it is stated as follows:
"4. Though the Writ Petition was filed on 27-11-2017 and
time was granted to the learned Government Pleader for
Assignment to get instructions on 30-11-2017 and again on
12-12-2017, learned Government Pleader for Assignment
reiterates that the subject land is Government land. He
does not dispute the proceedings dt.25-04-2011 addressed by
7th respondent to 3rd respondent stating that the land had
already been altered into zeroyiti land on 11-05-2016 and
that he recommended to 3rd respondent to delete it from
the list of properties prohibited for registration
communicated by 3rd respondent under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908. No other material is produced by the
Government Pleader to take any different view."
HCJ & CPKJ
I.A.No.1 of 2018 in
W.A.No.1637 of 2018 &
W.A.No.1637 of 2018
5. Having regard to the proceedings dt.25-04-2011 of
7th respondent certifying that the land had been classified
as zeroyiti land on 11-05-2016 itself, stating that and it was
wrongly included in the list of prohibited properties
communicated under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,
1908, the stand of the respondents that the land is
Government land, cannot be countenanced."
5. In the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears that date of the order of the
District Collector is wrongly recorded as "11.05.2016" and it should have
been recorded as "11.05.2006", as would be evident from the letter dated
25.04.2011, which is at page 132 of the Writ Appeal papers.
6. The grounds for condonation of delay are set out in paragraph 7 of
the I.A. The affidavit for condonation of delay is sworn by appellant No.7-
Tahsildar, seeking to explain his inability to prefer appeal within the
period of limitation. Explanation is sought to be given only by appellant
No.7 and there is no explanation by the other appellants. It is stated by
him that he had received copy of the order on 03.02.2018, but the district
administration was busy with various programmes such as Open Defecation
Programme and Swacha Bharat Programme and that he was given protocol
duties for the period from 01.05.2018 to 24.07.2018, and in between he
was also given Full Additional Charge to the post of Tahsildar,
Gopalapatnam Mandal and Visakhapatnam Urban Mandal from 01.05.2018
to 24.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 to 01.09.2018, respectively. It is stated that
he was also engaged with certain work relating to regularization of
encroachments. It is also stated by appellant No.7 that appellant No.3
directed him to prefer appeal on 20.10.2018.
HCJ & CPKJ
I.A.No.1 of 2018 in
W.A.No.1637 of 2018 &
W.A.No.1637 of 2018
7. It is inevitable that any Government functionary would definitely
have work to do in discharge of his duties. That by itself cannot be
construed to be a sufficient cause for condoning delay. It is that not that
appellant No.3, i.e., the District Collector, was not aware of the contents
of the order which required implementation of the order within four weeks
of presentation of documents by the writ petitioners. Appellant
No.3-District Collector has not given any explanation as to what prevented
him from preferring the appeal in time.
8. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the appellants
have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
9. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2018, W.A.No.1637 of 2018 stands
dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR
