Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.Prameelamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 November, 2024
APHC010163992021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 639/2021
Between:
D.prameelamma, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.639 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
The present revision is filed against the order dated 16.02.2021
in I.A.No.1646 of 2017 in A.S.No.62 of 2017 passed by the Principal
District Judge, Kadapa.
2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs. Suit O.S.No.24 of 2005 was filed
claiming an amount of Rs.6,36,000/- towards compensation for not re-
surrendering the suit schedule property as per the orders of
L.R.A.T.Kadapa dated 30.04.2001 with an interest @ 12% p.a. The
said suit was decreed on 11.07.2016.
3. Aggrieved thereby, Respondents/defendants filed A.S.No.62 of
2017 along with an application I.A.No.1646 of 2017 to condone the
delay of 352 days in filing the appeal. The application was allowed by
the trial Court initially on 24.08.2017 and the same was questioned
before this Court in CRP.No.127 of 2019. This Court allowed the
revision and directed I.A.No.1646 of 2017 to be heard on merits again.
Pursuant thereto, the District Appellate Court taking into consideration
the explanation given by the appellants/Respondents, condoned the
delay of 352 days subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the
Respondents/Petitioners herein on or before 16.03.2021.
Questioning the same, this revision is filed.
3. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Government Pleader for Arbitration for the
Respondents.
4. Learned Government Pleader during the course of argument
submitted that the costs awarded by this Court were deposited into
Court as the petitioners refused to accept the same.
5. In the application filed for condonation of delay, the
Respondents had pleaded the following reasons for their inability to
file appeal within the time prescribed;
(a) The entire Revenue Department was busy in the month of August and
September 2016 with "Mee Intiki Mee Bhoomi" Programme and also land
acquisition for road widening.
(b) In the month of October, November and December 2016 for the whole
three months we were busy with summary revision general electoral roles.
(c) In the month of January 2017 we were busy with "Janmabhoomi
programme.
(d) In the month of February 2017 the entire Revenue Department was busy
with MLC Electoral role preparation and election training classes.
(e) In the month of March, 2017 we were engaged in Ballot paper printing
and verification for MLC elections, preparation of polling stations and other
allied acts, MLC election polling and watch and ward of Ballot boxes and
counting.
(f) In the month of April 2017 we were forced to conduct magisterial
enquiries in various cases.
(g) In the month of May 2017 we were burdened with land acquisition for
Express High Way from Anantapur to Amavaravathi, and also we were
engaged in "Students and Revenue Department" programme.
(h) In the month of July 2017, we were forced to take up Kadapa Bangalore
Railway line.
(i) In the month of August 2017 we have been on our toes for the
implementation of the programme, "Raithu Sevalo Revenue Department",
Tax one time conversion from agriculture to Non Agriculture, Removal of
Enforcement and issues of House sites of the poor people under NTR
Housing Programme.
6. It was also pleaded that as there was change in the
Government Pleader for District Court, Kadapa, there was some delay
in handing over the records to the new Government Pleader. The
reasons given by the appellant are detailed and realistic.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners cited Postmaster General
and others v. Living Media India Limited and another1 in support
of his case. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the Government should act diligently and unless there is
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, there is no need
to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept for several
months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in
the process. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Bherulal2,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay cannot be condoned
mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party in this case. A similar view was taken in an
unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and another v. Vimla Devi (SLP (Civil) Diary No.34772 of
2022).
1 (2012) 3 SCC 563
2 (2020) 10 SCC 654
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of
India,3 had considered the above quoted judgments and the earlier
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court giving certain amount of latitude
to the delay applications filed by the Government and held at
paragraph 34 as under;
"34. The order under challenge in this appeal is dated 21-
12-20111. It was rendered at a point of time when the
decisions in Katiji4, Ramegowda11, Chandra Mani12, K.V.
Ayisumma13 and Lipok AO5 were holding the field. It is not
that the said decisions do not hold the field now, having
been overruled by any subsequent decision. Although
there have been some decisions in the recent past [State
of M.P. v. Bherulal16 is one such decision apart from
University of Delhi3] which have not accepted
governmental lethargy, tardiness and indolence in
presenting appeals within time as sufficient cause for
condonation of delay, yet, the exercise of discretion by
the High Court has to be tested on the anvil of the liberal
and justice oriented approach expounded in the aforesaid
decisions which have been referred to above."
(2023) 10 SCC 531
9. The further observation at paragraph 43 of the Judgement
would be all the relevant to the facts of this case;
"43. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival
contentions, we feel that the High Court's decision1 to
condone the delay on account of the first respondent's
inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons
assigned therein, does not suffer from any error
warranting interference. As the aforementioned
judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion
does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented
approach by the courts, where certain leeway could be
provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work
in preventing an appeal by the State being presented
within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow
a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity
of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy
gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working
of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to
be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of
the competing interests."
10. As noted supra, the explanation given by the Respondents
being plausible causes for the delay, the District Appellate Court
rightly exercised discretion and condoned the delay by passing a
detailed order. The criteria for condonation of delay as required under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act are satisfied. This Court does not find
any telling reason to interfere and superimpose its discretion.
11. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to
costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 13.11.2024
KLP
