C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

This is an application to condone the delay of 920 days in filing petition to revive WA (SR).No.45015 of 2006.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, Anantapur and the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Anantapur, are the applicants. The respondents filed WP.No.15957 of 1993 for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the applicants herein in paying compensation to them in respect of Ac.9.56 cents in Sy.Nos.210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 of Narayanapuram, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respondents also sought for a direction to the applicants to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 12.10.2004, allowed the writ petition and directed the applicants to pass award in accordance with law in respect of Ac.8.46 cents, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The applicants filed WA(SR).No.45015 of 2006 against the said order of the learned Single Judge. Along with the writ appeal, they also filed WAMP.No.1375 of 2006 seeking condonation of delay of 493 days in filing the writ appeal. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said application by order dated 18.07.2006, on the finding that the verification contained in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is not in conformity with the requirement of Order IX Rule 3 CPC and consequently WA(SR).No.45015 of 2006 was also dismissed as barred by time. The Bench, however, gave liberty to the applicants to file an application for revival of the appeal along with fresh application for condonation of delay duly supported by a proper affidavit.

On 21.07.2006, the applicants filed WAMP.No.2175 of 2006 for recalling order dated 18.07.2006 on the ground that the deficiencies pointed out by the Division Bench were removed and the defects rectified. The applicants later withdrew the said application with the permission of the Court to file revival application. Accordingly, the revival application was filed with a delay of 920 days along with WAMP.No.477 of 2009 to condone the said delay in filing the revival application.

At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the long delay of 920 days in filing the revival application occurred despite showing of due diligence by the applicants. He gave three reasons for the delay, namely; (i) that the delay of 493 days in filing the writ appeal occurred due to administrative reasons, (ii) that the applicants were pursuing the wrong remedy of seeking recalling of order dated 18.07.2006, instead of seeking revival of the writ appeal, and (iii) that the Government Pleader's Office was temporarily shifted to the City College buildings in the last week of April, 2007 due to undertaking of renovation work, that in the process of shifting, the case bundle was misplaced and that as the bundle could not be traced immediately, the Government Pleader could not take immediate steps to file revival application. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. Before analyzing the reasons contained in the affidavit, we would like to briefly refer to the settled legal position with regard to condonation of delay. The plethora of case law suggests seemingly divergent views on the approach the Courts needed to adopt in considering the applications for condonation of delay. The earliest view of insistence on explaining day to day delay has given way to a somewhat liberal approach by the Courts. Similarly, the view that in considering the delay, the Courts should not discriminate between the State and its instrumentalities and the private citizen yielded to the view that the Courts should recognize