APHC010310162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3488] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1789 OF 2024 Between: Koniki Nagabhushanam …Petitioner AND The Arbitrator & District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P., And two others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Arbitration 2. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner herein had approached the Principal District Judge, Prakasam, under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 for enhancement of compensation payable to him for the land which has been taken away for construction of National Highway. -2- C.R.P. No.1789 of 2024 2. Though the petition filed by the petitioner, before the Principal District Judge, was in time, there was a delay of 708 days in representing the petition. It appears that the petition was initially returned with some objections and was not represented for about 708 days after time for representation has been given. This delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner through an affidavit filed by the counsel for the petitioner. 3. The Principal District Judge, after going through the explanation, was of the opinion that no cogent or proper reasons have been given for explaining the delay of 708 days. The Principal District Judge, not being satisfied with the reasons set out in the affidavit had dismissed the application I.A. No.325 of 2024 in A.O.P. C.F.R. No.1133, by an order dated 18.06.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for arbitration. 5. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for arbitration, the grounds set out in the application for condonation of delay did not set out any reasons for condoning the delay of 708 days. However, the fact remains that the petitioner herein is presently aged 86 years and is depending on the compensation -3- C.R.P. No.1789 of 2024 that would be paid out to him. In such circumstances, it would be unfair to punish the petitioner, for the defects and faults of his counsel. On the other hand, it would also be necessary to protect the interest of the respondents from payment of any interest for the period of delay. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dt.18.06.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Prakasam, in I.A. No.325 of 2024 in A.O.P. C.F.R. No.1133, dt.20.01.2024 with a direction to number the A.O.P., if all other requirements are complied. However, this shall be subject to the condition that enhanced compensation, if any granted, by the Court shall not attract any interest for the period of 708 days delay in representation of the bundle. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV