Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3047 AP
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2024
APHC010 Bench Sr.No:-91
377172023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3446]
AT AMARAVATI
I.A.No.1 of 2024
in/and
WRIT APPEAL NO: 784 of 2023
The District Collector and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
K Allemma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
**********
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP), Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)
CH SIDDHARTHA SARMA, Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 1st April 2024
PC:
The present application is filed seeking condonation of 572 days
delay in preferring the present appeal against the judgment and order
dated 05.01.2022. The Appeal was preferred on 31.07.2023.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the presence of the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was specifically recorded in
the judgment and order impugned. However, with a view to explain the
delay, the only explanation which has been rendered in the application
is as under:
"4. I humbly submit that the date of order was passed on 05.01.2022 and order copy applied 21.06.2023 which was received on 14.07.2023, thereafter appeal has been filed on 31.07.2023.
5. I further humbly submit that, at the time of passing of the order by the Hon'ble learned Single Judge the districts were not bifurcated. But subsequently on 03.04.2022 the Chittoor District has been bifurcated and a new district has been formed as Tirupati District. Hence, the appellant 1 & 2 being 3rd parties to the writ petition has filed an application for leave, as the property situated within the jurisdiction of Tirupati and also the petitioners did not amend the cause title by changing the full cause title of the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District."
3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant however has drawn our
attention to a similar ground having urged in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in
W.A.No.784 of 2023, wherein this Court had rejected a similar
explanation and dismissed the application filed by the Government.
4. In our opinion the explanation rendered in the application seeking
condonation of delay is neither convincing nor can persuade us to
condone the gross delay of as many as 572 days.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in the present
application and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Letters
Patent Appeal shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J SRT
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!