Dismissed

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Vasundhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Aug 2023WA/628/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant sought condonation of a 558-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal under Section 151 of the CPC, citing reliance on getting land included in a Prohibitory List. The Court found the explanation unconvincing and the delay time-barred, dismissing both the application and the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned not granted; Writ Appeal No. 628 of 2023 dismissed without costs.

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Vs Vasundhara… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAf^^

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI

¶7

I.A. No.1 OF 2023 IN / AND

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 628 OF 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Order dated August 19, 2021 in W.P.No.20541 of 2019 this Writ Appeal is filed on the file of the High Court.

¶10

lA NO.1 OF 2023

¶11

Between:

¶12

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶13

AND

¶14

...APPELLANT(S)

¶15

1.. M/s Vasundhara Constructions Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Mahesh Agannzal S/o K L.Agarwal, II Floor, Ganesh Magnum, OPUF, Plot No.25, Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibowii, Hyderabad.

¶16

1. The Sub Registrar, Tirupathi Urban, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. The Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Stamps Registration) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,

¶17

The District Registrar, Balaji Registration District, Tirupathi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 556 days in filing the above Appeal.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated August 19, 2021, in WP.No.20541 of - 2020, pending disposal of above Appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant(s): M/S. C SINDHU KUMARI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 : GP FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OP ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE Se HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI LA.No.1 of8083 in/and W.A.No.628 of 8025

¶27

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep., by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶28

.. Appellant

¶29

Versus

¶30

M/s Vasundhara Constructions Pvt.Ltd., ^P-» its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Mahesh Agarwal, S/o k.L.Agarwal, n Floor, Ganesh Magnum, OPUF, Plot No.25, Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibdwh, Hyderabad and four others

...Respondents

Dt.:89.08.8085

P.O:

I.A.No.1 of 2023 is an application seeking condonation of 558

¶35

days delay m filing the present appeal.

¶36

The judgment and order appealed against was rendered on 19.08.2021 and the appeal came to he preferred on 15.03.2023. There is thus delay of 558 days m preferring the appeal. Assummg

¶37

HCJ & AVSS, J WA_«28_2023

¶38

¶39

that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 was to be excluded in view of Covid-19 as per the-directions ofthe Apex Court on account of delay, stiU the appeal is hopelessly time barred. The explanation rendered in the application seeking condonation of delay also is not convincing. What is stated in paragraph Nos.4 Se 5 of the application is reproduced hereunder:

¶40

“4. It is submitted that after the impugned orders passed by this HonTDle Court, this Appellant had taken expeditious steps to ensure that the subject matter land is included in the Prohibitory List under Section 22(a)(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, to protect the lands belonging to the Appellant. In this regard, it is submitted that the AppeUant had addressed letters to the Endowments Department, the Revenue Divisional Officer and other officials concerned to include the subject matter land in the Prohibitory List. Ultimately by Notification bearing No.Ml/19027/36/1/2022, dated December 11, 2022, the subject matter land was included-in the Prohibitory List.

¶41

I submit that along with this Application, I am filing the entire correspondence that the Appellant had for getting the lands included in the Prohibitory List. The Appellant bona fide believed that, inasmuch as, it is taking steps for getting the subject matter land included in the Prohibitory T.iHt, besides the letter issued on its behalf to the registering authorities, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, nie Appellant bonafide thought that it can wait for -filing tha Appeal till the Notification is issued. The delay in filing the Appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. The Appellant is not -guilty of any'latches. It has been prosecuting thR-pnnnflefiingg very diligently. It is taking every effort to protect the properties ofthe Appellant.”

¶42

HCJ a AVSS, J WA_628_2023

¶43

¶44

3. It is difficult to believe that the applicant Devastha.na.Tn who has at its disposal a board of top lawyers in the State, would not be guided in the right direction including the advice to file an appeal against the judgment and order impugned yet no action was taken by the applicant to seek any legal advice in the matter. The Executive Officer appears to have taken a decision on his own based upon his belief that it was not necessary at aU to file an appeal against the judgment and order impugned inasmuch as steps were being taken by him for inclusion of the subject land in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(l) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶45

Be that as it may, we are not convinced with the explanation rendered in I.A.No.l of 2023 filed for seeking condonation of delay. The same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal

¶46

also stands dismissed. No costs.

¶47

Sd/- E.KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTYREGIST^K //TRUE COPY// ^sect^^nS^cer

¶48

¶49

Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies MSR 9'

HIGH COURT

DATED:29/08/2023

Coj>t0 P6IC

ORDER I.A. NO.01 OF 2023 IN / AND WA.No.628 of 2023

¶54

S 1 t OCT 2IC3 sJ

¶55

DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Vasundhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Vasundhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kancharla Bharath Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Putchakayala Sivani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravi Chetan Vs the State of Ap

The Commissioner Vs Imadabathuni Rama Rao

Mohammed Inam Sabreen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Daram Kavya Sucharitha Vs the State of Ap