The State Of Telangana vs K.Yemma Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1826 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                   I.A.No.1 of 2023 in/& W.A.No.173 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

       Heard Ms. Akula Sunitha, learned Assistant Government

Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate

General for the State of Telangana for the appellants. We have also

heard Mr. K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. W.A.No.173 of 2023 has been preferred against the order

dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.23910 of 2021 filed by the respondent as the writ

petitioner.

3. I.A.No.1 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay

of 294 days in filing the related appeal.

4. On 06.02.2023, we had issued notice on I.A.No.1 of 2023,

pursuant to which respondent has filed objection to the prayer for

condonation of delay.

::2::

5. We have carefully perused the affidavit filed by the appellants

in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023. However, we do not find any

averment in the supporting affidavit explaining the inordinate delay

of 294 days in preferring the writ appeal. In paragraph 10 of the

supporting affidavit, the following averments have been made:

It is submitted that though the 3rd petitioner herein on 20.4.2022 having verified the official website of this Hon'ble Court, came to know about the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and on 26.04.2022 addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Resettlement & Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition informing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and requested to examine the feasibility of allotment of land to the writ petitioner as directed by the learned Single Judge. The 3rd petitioner also addressed a similar letter dated 06.05.2022 to the District Collector, Nizamabad. It is submitted that in the meantime, the 4th petitioner has received copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In pursuance of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the 4th petitioner has verified the records and as per the said verification, it is revealed that there are no lands available in rehabilitation centers established for ::3::

providing the rehabilitation facilities to the displaced families/persons and as the writ petitioner is eligible for rehabilitation, specimen certificate was issued and the 4th petitioner has informed the same to the 5th petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2022. While the matter stood thus, the writ petitioner has filed contempt case No.1496/2022 and the 4th respondent has filed counter-affidavit and the said contempt case is pending. It is submitted that on 25.10.2022, the 4th petitioner addressed letters to all the Tahsildars of Armoor division, Nizamabad district, requesting to identify Government dry lands in their respective mandals and submit report for complying with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. In response to the said letter, the Tahsildars reported that there are no vacant government lands available in their respective Mandals. The same was brought to the notice of the Collector, Nizamabad District and as per the instructions of the collector, the 4th petitioner approached the learned Additional Advocate General office. Thereafter, the instant writ appeal was prepared and preferred to this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that in view of the above fact situation, there is delay of 294 days in preferring the above writ appeal and the said delay is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above. It is submitted that, if the said delay is not condoned, the ::4::

petitioners will be put to grave irreparable loss. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in preferring the above Writ Appeal.

6. We are of the view that the above averments are wholly

inadequate to explain the delay of 294 days. It is true that each and

every day's delay is not required to be explained. However, there

must be some cogent explanation for the delay, in the absence of

which it is not possible for the court to condone delay of 294 days.

7. Be that as it may, we have also looked into the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2022 allowing W.P.No.23910

of 2021. Respondent had filed the related writ petition with the

grievance that he is a project affected person and is entitled to the

benefit of rehabilitation under G.O.Ms.No.141 Public Works

Department, Projects Wing dated 19.04.1968; as per the said GO,

he is entitled to five acres of dry land or two acres of wet land from

the Government free of cost.

8. It may be mentioned that land and house belonging to the

respondent, details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 3 ::5::

of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2022, were

acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Sri Ram

Sagar Project under award dated 17.10.1975. However, since then,

respondents have not take any steps for rehabilitating the

petitioner. Aggrieved, the related writ petition came to be filed by

the respondent.

9. Appellant No.4 filed a counter-affidavit admitting that

respondent is entitled to allotment of five acres of agricultural land

and two house site plots admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents since his

properties were acquired for the purpose of construction of Sri

Ram Sagar Project.

10. Learned Single Judge, after referring to various case laws,

allowed the related writ petition by directing the appellants (who

were respondents in the writ proceedings) to identify suitable land

and thereafter, to allot the same to the respondent as per his

eligibility preferably within a period of two months.

::6::

11. We do not find any error or infirmity in such direction of the

learned Single Judge. In fact, a view can be taken that appellants

have not discharged their statutory duty to rehabilitate a project

affected person for almost fifty years. We see no good reason to

entertain the appeal or to condone the delay in filing the same.

12. Hence, W.A.No.173 of 2023 as well as I.A.No.1 of 2023 are

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.04.2023 LUR