Y. V. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) CMP Nos. 17314 and 17315 of 1998 are the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 938 days in filing each of the C. R. P. State of Andhra Pradesh is the petitioner in these two applications. Brief history :--It appears, the government acquired an extent of Ac. 25-25 guntas of land belonging to the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act under two separate awards. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation @ Rs. 39,900. 00per acre. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the compensation was enhanced and fixed @ Rs. 200. 00 per square yard and after deductions, the market value was fixed at Rs. 160. 00 per square yard, by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP Nos. 28 and 445 of 1983. The said award of the civil Court was questioned by Government by filing C. C. C. A. N0. 55 of 1987 in this Court. The claimants also preferred cross-objections. This Court by judgment dated 23-3-1990 reduced the compensation amount from Rs. 160 to Rs. 50. 00 per square yard. However, this Court awarded interest on additional market value and solatium. Questioning the judgment of this Court, the claimants filed appeal in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4538 and 4539 of 1991 and the said appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19-11-1991. Thereafter, the claimant filed EP Nos. 66/1990 and 67/1990. The said E. P. were contested by the Government. The executing Court i. e. , the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, passed two identical orders therein on 30-10-1995 holding that claimants-decree holders are entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium. The Government now seeks to file revisions against the said orders in CRP (SR) Nos. 58947/1998 and 58941 of 1998 with delay of 938 days in each revision.

( 2 ) THE explanation given by the petitioner in both the petitions is similar. It is submitted that soon after the executing Court passed the orders, the then Land Acquisition Officer addressed a letter to the then Standing Counsel Sri P. G. Raja Rao, which was acknowledged by him on 14-11-1995, requesting him to obtain certified copies of the order dated 30-10-1995 and also seeking his legal opinion for preferring appeal against the said order, it is submitted that thereafter, one Sri K. E swaraih, the then Deputy Tahsildar of Huda also pursued the matter with the standing Counsel. However, it seems, neither the legal opinion was given by Sri P. G. Raja Rao nor did he obtain the certified copies of the order of the lower Court. Thereafter, when notices were served in the other two revisions which were preferred by the claimants against the very same order of the lower Court, the petitioner seemed to have addressed another letter on 21-8-1998 requesting the Standing Counsel to give his legal opinion. The Standing Counsel then opined that since the main E. P. were still pending, all the issues could be agitated in those E. P. Thereafter, it seems, Sri P. G. Raja Rao was replaced by another Counsel. As per the advice of the subsequent Standing Counsel, they requested Sri Raja Rao to give an affidavit to the effect that he did not obtain the certified copies and also did not give the legal opinion. But, Sri Raja Rao replied that he would be able to give the affidavit only after verifying the records. In the meanwhile, i. e. , on 30-12-1998, Sri Raja Rao died. It is submitted that the revisions could not be preferred in time only due to the non-receipt of legal opinion and certified copies from their Standing Counsel within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that there are no laches on the part of the petitioner and that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. Under those circumstances, it is prayed that the delay in preferring the two revisions be condoned.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri S. Venkata Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, who vehemently opposed the petitions contendi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document