M/S. Pride India Mansions Private ... vs The Bharat Heavy Electricals ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2266 Tel

Item No.47

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

          I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.543 OF 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    I.A.No.1 of 2020 has been moved by the appellant (respondent

No.4 in W.P.No.26350 of 2018) praying inter alia for condonation of

delay of 377 days in filing the accompanying appeal that is directed

against an order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge

in I.A.No.1 of 2018 moved in W.P.No.26350 of 2018. The said I.A.

was filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner seeking suspension of

the operation of the order dated 05.01.2018, passed by the respondent

No.3/Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) of

granting layout permission on the subject land in favour of the private

respondent No.4.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the captioned writ

petition was filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner seeking to

invalidate the layout permission on the subject land granted by the

respondent No.3/HMDA in favour of the private respondent No.4

herein, predecessor-in-title of the respondent No.5. The appellant

herein had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale dated

21.06.2018, with the respondent No.5. A status quo order in respect

of the subject land was granted in favour of the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner on 27.07.2018 in the captioned writ petition, though the

appellant claims that it is in physical possession thereof and now the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner is trying to dispossess it under the

garb of the status quo order. The said order of status quo was made

absolute by the impugned order dated 22.10.2019. Challenging the

same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. The only explanation offered in the application for condonation

of delay is that the appellant was awaiting the outcome of an interim

application moved in W.P.No.26350 of 2018, filed by the respondent

No.1, stated to be connected to the writ petition filed by the appellant.

In para 3 of the affidavit, it has been stated that in normal course, the

present appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date

of passing of the impugned order i.e., in the month of November,

2019, but the appellant was "awaiting the posting of the captioned

writ petition for final hearing" and therefore, did not file the appeal in

the hope that final hearing will take place soon.

4. We are afraid that the aforesaid explanation can neither be

treated as a just or sufficient cause for condoning such a prolonged

delay of 377 days in filing the present appeal; nor can the plea of the

intervening event of the COVID-19 pandemic situation that took place

in March, 2020, come to the aid of the appellant as by then over 120

days had expired, reckoned from the date of passing of the impugned

order.

5. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay. I.A.No.1

of 2020 is dismissed. As a result, the writ appeal also stands

dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 02.08.2021 Lrkm/Pln