Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 MRO 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 OS 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 is S. No.89 of Mahabubnagar town. The plaintiffs claimed to have been cultivating the land for more than 30 years after reclaiming the land. They claimed that they were land less poor persons and therefore entitled for assignment, but, no action was taken by the defendants despite the representations given to them. They claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs. But, no evidence was adduced by the defendants though repeated adjournments were granted on the request of the defendants' Counsel. Only after the judgment was reserved, an application was filed to reopen the case to examine the Tahsildar, but the same was rejected by the trial Court. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit on 23-12-1982. Against this judgment, an appeal - AS No.34 of 1983 was preferred by the State to the District Court. Rven at the appellate stage, no steps were taken to file the relevant documents as additional evidence as commented by the appellate Court, The Appellate Court felt that it was not a fit case for remanding the matter to the lower Court, more so for the reason that adequate opportunity was given by the trial Court.

6. Let us see the chronology of events adverted to in the affidavit:

"Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar in AS No.34of 1983 -5-2-1985.

Date of petition of Sri Sankuruiah (one of the plaintiffs) forwarded by the Collector, Mahabubnagar with endorsement to lake necessary action for implementation of decree in RORas per Rules- 24-1-1986.

Letter of the MRO, Mahabubnagar addressed to the Collector, Mahabubnagar District requesting to clarify with regard to the implementation of the decree in AS No.34 of 1983-3-11-1986.

G.P., Mahabubnagar was requested to obtain certified copies of certain documents in OS No.264 of 1988 - 9-5-1995.

Copy application was made in the District Munsif Court, Mahabubnagar -12-5-1995.

Documents were furnished by the District Munsif Court, Mahabubnagar/G.P., Mahabubnagar- 22-5-1995.

Records were handed over to the Office of the Advocate General - 24-5-1995.

CRP against EP No.24 of 1994 in OS No.264 of 1988 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of AP - 7-6-1995.

CRP admitted and interim stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. on- 14-6-1995.

8. Another fact which is pertinent to notice is that certified copies of the judgments and decrees of the appellate Court and the trial Court were applied for and obtained only in August/September, 1993.

9. With these facts and account of events, can it be said by any reasonable standard that there were good and substantial reason for not preferring the second appeal for a period often long years? Unequivocally, we are of the view that the answer is plainly in the negative.

10. An analysis of the chronological events furnished by the petitioners would reveal the following glaring and striking features and explained gaps. Firstly, there is no explanation why no action was taken after the judgment was pronounced on 5-2-1985 to obtain the certified copies and to contest the judgment. According to the chronology, it was only when the petition was filed on 24-1-1986 by the decree-holders seeking implementation of the judgment, that the correspondence between the Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer started. After the said petition, it took nearly two years for the Collector to instruct the MRO to question the decree by tiling an appeal in the High Court with condone delay petition. Thereafter only, certified copies of the judgment were obtained in AS No.34 of 1983 (vide Serial No. 18 of chronology). Till then why certified copies were not applied for? Was it the fault of the Government Pleader and why the Government Pleader was not requested in the year 1986 itself to obtain the certified copies? These queries remain unexplained. It may be mentioned here that the certified copy of the judgment and decree enclosed with the Memo of second appeal is the one obtained in September, 1993. What happened to the earlier certified copy is not known. Be that as it may, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and the opinion of the Government Pleader in April, 1988 and taking a decision at the level of the Collector (who was party to the suit and the appeal) to file an appeal with a petition for condonation of delay, why the appeal was not filed, has not been stated. After a gap of five months i.e., in October, 1988, the Collector slarted addressing letters to the MRO and the Government Pleader to file an appeal with condone delay petition. Records were said to have been handed over to the Government Pleader for filing appeal on 15-12-1988. Then, why the second appeal was not preferred? There is no explanation whatsoever. However, we notice that a totally unwarranted step of initiating proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act was taken in November/December, 1988 which led to the filing of the writ petition. As already stated, the said writ petition was allowed and the eviction notice was quashed. This was on 7-2-1991. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners herein did not move their little finger to file the second appeal with condone delay petition. The decision already taken to file the appeal remained in cold storage for which there is no explanation. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the respondents (petitioners herein) were at liberty to file an appeal to the High Court. Four months after the judgment copy was received, the Government Pleader was requested to furnish his opinion for the second time. The Government Pleader in the High Coujt gave his opinion that second appeal could be filed. Notwithstanding that, the opinion of the Government Pleader, Mahabubnagar was sought for by the Collector four months later i.e., on 30-11-1991. On 22-1-1992, the District Collector instrucled the MRO to contact the Government Pleader in the High Court and file the second appeal. The MRO went on reminding the Collector to return the records though he could have obtained the records personally instead of sending routine communications for nearly one and half year in an already delayed matter. This correspondence went on without any response from the Collector's Office. Thereafter, peculiarly on 28-8-1993, the Collector sent a note to the MRO to have personal discussion in the company of the Government Pleader, Mahabubnagar in regard to filing of second appeal. Then, the MRO requested the Government Pleader to obtain certified copies of the judgment and copies were obtained in September, 1993. The Government Pleader, Mahabubnagar again expressed the opinion that second appeal could be preferred. On 24-11-1993, the Government Pleader in the High Court was once again requested to offer the opinion as regards filing of Second Appeal (hough such opinion was given on two earlier occasions. Two months after such opinion was given by the Government Pleader, High Court, the Collector requested the Advocate-General to entrust the matter to Special Government Pleader for the purpose of filing the second appeal. In the meanwhile, OS No.264 of 1988 filed by the respondents herein for directing mutation of the entries in the revenue records was decreed on 27-4-1993. No appeal was preferred against that judgment. The decree holders in OS No.264 of 1988 (respondents) filed HP No.24 of 1994 for execution of the decree in OS No.264 of 1988 by way of arrest of the defendant-Collector. The arrest warrant was received on 6-4-1994. Itappears that at that stage, the Government was approached to permit the Collector to prefer the Second Appeal. The reasons for taking such permission even though the District Collector himself could have taken steps to file the appeal are not forthcoming. Be that as it may, the Government permitted the Collector to prefer the Second Appeal on 29-7-1994. Even after this date, routine correspondence went on between the Collector and the MRO and the Government Pleaders in the High Court and at Mahabubnagar. At last, the records were handed over to the Advocate-General on 24-5-1995. The Second Appeal was filed on 13-6-1995. In the meanwhile, CRP No. 1895 of 1995 was filed against the order of arrest passed in EP No.24 of 1994 and the arrest warrant was stayed in the CRP.