P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) NOTICING certain seemingly conflicting observations in the Division Bench decisions of this Court as regards the yardstick to be applied and approach to be adopted while dealing with the petition filed by the State for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, a learned Single judge of this Court B. S. Raikote, J. has referred this C. M. P. to a Division Bench. The C. M. P. has been filed by the State of andhra Pradesh represented by the District collector, Mahabubnagar for condonation of delay of 3,654 days in filing the second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court rendered on 5-2-1985. This case furnishes a typical example of not merely inaction of bureaucratic machinery, but also apathy and casualness towards court litigation in which fairly valuable land is involved. The explanation for this inordinately long delay is sought to be given in an equally casual manner with vague averments, leaving many unexplained gaps. The long delay by itself may not be a ground to refuse the condonation of delay. But the reasons for the delay should be satisfactorily explained so as to make out a sufficient cause under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. That is utterly lacking in the present case. There may be apparently irreconcilable dicta in some of the cases of this Court to which the learned single Judge has referred. But, the petitioner-State cannot seek precedential support from any of the cases to justify the delay. Even adopting a liberal and realistic standard which is expected to be adopted by the Court, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay of about ten years in preferring the second appeal. We may incidentally mention that the second appeal is sought to be preferred with a petition to permit production of additional documentary evidence in the form of revenue records.

( 2 ) THE area of conflict which was noticed by the learned single Judge is best explained in his own words which we quote:from the tenor of the judgment of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench reported in 1991 (1) ALT 496 (1st cited supra), it is clear that whenever the state is the litigant, the Courts are bound to take into consideration the factors like red-tapism in Government, delays in correspondence, habitual indifference of the Government officials or Government Pleaders, collusion or negligence of the government officials or fraud, damage to the public interest or public funds or interest of the State, institutional or bureaucratic procedures etc. , and the need to render substantial justice on merits. But, the latter decision reported in 1995 (3) ALD 43 (supra), lays down contrary proposition to the effect that the Government as a litigant has to be treated on par with that of other private litigants. The other factors like, officers took their own time in corresponding with each other etc. , cannot be accepted while considering the cause shown.

( 3 ) IRRESPECTIVE of the fact whether any contradictory proposition has been laid down in the latter case, as already observed, the facts of the instant case as brought out in the affidavit filed by the M. R. O. do not merit condonation of delay even after giving a wider latitude to the State on account of peculiar features permeating the state machinery. It is not merely a case of each day s delay remaining unexplained, but a case of long spells of delay of months and years going unexplained.

( 4 ) IT is with this preface, we proceed to delve into the details. The respondents herein filed O. S. No. 160 of 1981 in the Court of the District Munsif at Mahabubnagar seeking declaration of title and grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants - State of A. P. represented by the District Collector and the Tahsildar, mahabubnagar from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land is ac. 5. 08 guntas situate in S. No. 89 of mahabubnagar t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document