Dismissed

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration v. Smt. Yathapu Manoharamma

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024WA/138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government applicants sought condonation of a 395-day delay in filing a writ appeal against a writ petition judgment. Finding no satisfactory explanation after dismissal of their review petition, and invoking the Apex Court's stance against leniency for government departments, the Court refused condonation and dismissed both the application and the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Chief Commissioner of Land… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

I.A.No.2 of 2024

in/and

W.A.No.138 of 2024

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad, Now at APIIC Building, Near NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & four others.

¶7

… Applicants

¶8

Smt. Yathapu Manoharammma, W/o. late Bala Krishna Reddy, R/o.H.No.2/152, Gangulavari Veedhi, Buddaiahpally, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Government Pleader for Assignment, counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Mr. MSR Chandra Murthy, counsel for the respondent.

¶12

Dt.:13.02.2024

¶13

P.C:

¶14

IA.No.2 of 2024 is an application seeking condonation of 395

¶15

days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order,

¶16

dated 07.12.2022 passed in WP.No.24169 of 2008.

¶17

The appeal was preferred on 05.02.2024.

¶18

In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation

¶19

application, it is stated that after the judgment and order

¶20

¶21

HCJ & RRR,J WA_138_2024

¶22

impugned, review petition came to be filed on 15.05.2023 which was dismissed on 14.09.2023. After the dismissal of the review petition, it is stated that a copy of the said order of dismissal in review petition was received on 04.12.2023 whereafter, the Joint Collector, YSR District addressed a letter to the concerned Government Pleader to prefer an appeal vide letter, dated 23.12.2023 and finally the appeal came to be filed on 05.02.2024.

¶23

We have gone through the affidavit as also heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

We do not find that there is any satisfactory explanation rendered by the applicants, which would deserve condonation of delay. Although a review petition came to be filed by the applicants on 15.05.2023 which even though belated came to be dismissed on 14.09.2023. There is no satisfactory explanation rendered as to why the appeal was not preferred immediately after the dismissal of the review petition on 14.09.2023. In our opinion, it was not at all necessary for the applicants to wait for a certified copy of the order passed in the review petition.

¶25

In the case of the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal

¶26

¶27

HCJ & RRR,J WA_138_2024

¶28

No.2474-2475 of 2012, the Apex Court held at paragraph No.13 as

¶29

under:-

¶30

“In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

¶32

Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, we find that this is not a case which would warrant condonation of delay. Accordingly, IA.No.2 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶35

Vjl

¶36

¶37

HCJ & RRR,J WA_138_2024

¶38

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶39

IA.No.2 of 2024 in/and

¶40

WA.No.138 of 2024

¶41

Dt:13.02.2024

¶42

Vjl

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration v. Smt. Yathapu Manoharamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration v. Smt. Yathapu Manoharamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.N.V. Kameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanapalli Narayana Rao Vs Reserve Bank of India

Akhila Bharatha Veera Shaiva Dharmika Agama Parishat Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Santhoshi Majhi Vs Dr Ntr University of Health Sciences

Santhoshi Majhi Vs Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs T Kailash