Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 1207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
G. Chandraiah, J.
Ithagani Lachaiah, Ithagani Venkataiah and Ithagani Sathaiah - Appellants
Vs.
The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate and Ors. - Respondent
WPMP No. 29602 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 33159 of 1997
Decided On: 05.12.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sri P. Venkateswara Rao
For Respondents/Defendant:GP for Revenue for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 10
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Restoration - Petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1929 days in filing the restoration petition for seeking to set aside the default order passed in W.P. and restore the writ petition - Held, Having regard to facts and circumstances, in each case, the condone delay petition is to be considered by applying the principle of justice, so as to do the substantial justice to both the parties - Though the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents strictly contended that in normal circumstances short delay can be considered but in the matter of inordinate delay Courts must have apply hard yardstick of law for condoning the delay - In this case, though it is inordinate delay, sufficient cause is made out - Therefore, in my opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be attributed that there is negligence on the part of the petitioners or the counsel appearing on their behalf - Under those circumstances, with a view to do the substantial justice to the parties, the matter needs to be considered on merits of the case - Therefore, the delay is condoned but on terms - Ordered accordingly. (Para 29)
G. Chandraiah, J.
1. This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1929 days in filing the restoration petition for seeking to set aside the default order dated 13.02.2007 passed in W.P. No. 33159 of 1997 and restore the writ petition. In support of the said petition, the petitioners filed affidavit, inter alia, stating that the writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, vide Proceedings in Case No. C3/JC/Ta/11/94, dated 20.10.1997 reversing the order made by the 2nd respondent. Mandal Revenue Officer, in Case No. B/2281/93 dated 04.04.1994, resuming the possession of the land from the petitioners to an extent of Acs. 8.00 in Survey No. 202 of Indurthy Village, Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners also filed WPMP. No. 38972 of 1997 seeking to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No. C3/JCTA/11/94 dated 20.10.1997, reversing the order of the 2nd respondent made in Case No. B/2281/93, dated 04.04.1994.
3. This Court on 11.12.1997, while ordering rule nisi granted interim suspension. Thereafter, on 13.02.2007 writ petition was dismissed for default, which came to the notice of the petitioners consequent to the notice dated 26.06.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar, which was received by them on 10.07.2012 asking them to appear before him on 14.07.2012. Immediately, after receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2012 and requested time and accordingly adjourned the matter to 28.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached their counsel on 22.07.2012 and produced the copy of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent and also application filed by the respondents 4 to 10, who are legal representatives of the 3rd respondent brought on record vide order dated 08.10.1998, before the 1st respondent on 26.05.2012. Immediately, after verification of the Court order, the petitioners' counsel informed that the writ petition was dismissed for default on 13.02.2007 and he advised the petitioners to file a restoration petition seeking to set aside the default order dated 13.02.2007 along with condone delay petition. For the above reasons, for filing the restoration petition, 1929 days of delay was caused. Therefore, the present condone delay petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 13.02.2007, when the matter was listed, due to oversight, he could not represent the matter, therefore the writ petition was dismissed for default and the same has not been noted. The learned counsel came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition when the petitioners approached him with a notice dated 26.06.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent. Immediately, thereafter, he has taken steps to file restoration petition along with the present condone delay petition. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners also filed an affidavit. Therefore, he submitted that though the delay is inordinate but there is no willful act neither on the part of the petitioners nor on the part of the counsel appearing on their behalf therefore, he requested to condone the delay.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that though the merits of the case, which are not necessary for considering the present delay petition, but to do substantial justice to the parties having regard to the lis for consideration between the parties he sought to submit that the petitioners are having substantial right over the land in question by virtue of the certificate issued in their favour under Section 50B of the Act whereunder the petition scheduled land in respect of which an unregistered sale deed was validated and validation of certificate was issued by virtue of which they are in possession from 1984 onwards. It is further submitted that after death of the original tenant, sons
