IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.689 OF 2014 DATED: 03-06-2014 Between:
Bonugula Babu … Appellant And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.689 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned Judge dated 16-10-2012 whereby, the order of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District refusing to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before him was upheld.
2. It is appropriate to record that on earlier occasion, the appellant approached this Court by way of a writ petition with a prayer for setting aside the Occupancy Right Certificate issued on 12-12-1997. However, this Court while entertaining that writ petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal before the Joint Collector with prayer for condonation of delay and also directed that such application for condonation of delay shall be considered if sufficient cause was shown.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, delay condonation petition was taken up by the Joint Collector and after examining the cause shown in the affidavit and also the counter filed by the respondents, the Joint Collector was not satisfied with the explanation shown for the delay. Hence, the delay of about 13 years was not condoned.
4. Against the above said order of the Joint Collector for not condoning the delay, again a writ petition was filed. The learned trial Judge examined the sufficiency of cause and found that the plea of ignorance of the order passed earlier in 1997 was not believable and acceptable. The learned Judge’s appreciation of facts does not appear to be without basis.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that non- service of notice on the appellant before granting Occupancy Right Certificate is a strong ground, which itself is sufficient cause. Such a plea was not taken in the writ petition, as such there was no occasion to deal with this issue. The appellant is not the one member of the family and there are other brothers and their children who are having a shared claim and they have not come forward. The trial Judge recorded the said fact and disbelieved the story of the appellant as ignorance of the order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 03-06-2014 Svv