APHC010162542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR lA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2018 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 492 OF 2018 lA NOS. 1 OF 2018 Between: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.,, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Vijayawada. ...Petitioner AND 1. Yelati Ramababu, Aged about 51 years, R/o.Prathapnagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. Yelati Rama Devi, W/o.Rambabu, Aged about 49 years, R/ o.Prathapnagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. Yelati Lakshmana Babu, S/o.Subba Rao, Rep. by his GPA Holder Y.Subba Rao, R/ o.Prathapnagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 6. The Additional Commissioner, Industries and Special Authority, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tnlhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 3705 days in preferring the present writ appeal against the order dated 6.12.2007 in W.P.No.14101 of 1996. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in trie circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the API 1C Ltd/Appellant herein to prefer writ appeal against the order dated: 06-12-2007 in W.P.No. 14101 of 1996. WRIT APPEAL NO: 492 OF 2018 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 06-12-2007 in W.P.No. 14101 of 1996 on the file of the High Court. lA NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 6.12.2007 in W.P.No. 14101 of 1996, pending disposal of the writ appeal, 'and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Counsel for the Respondents: A RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following order: 77 7 / APHC010162542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) '/ [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 492/2018 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dated 06-12-2007 in W.P.No.14101 of 1996 Between: INFRASTRUCTURE REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND INDUSTRIAL PRADESH 1. ANDHRA CORPORATION LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA. 11 ...APPELLANT AND 1.YELATI RAMABABU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O.PRATHAPNAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.YELATI RAMA DEVI, W/O.RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RJ O.PRATHAPNAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.YELATI LAKSHMANA BABU, S/O.SUBBA RAO, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER Y.SUBBA RAO, RJ O.PRATHAPNAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. REP. BY ITS 5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J \ I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2018 In/and W.A.No.492 of 2018 6.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, INDUSTRIES AND SPECIAL AUTHORITY, LAND ACQUISITION, STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. \ ...RESPONDENT(S): lANO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 3705 days in preferring the present writ appeal against the order dated 6.12.2007 in W.P.No.14101 of 1996, and pass lANO: 2 0F 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the APIIC Ltd/Appellant herein to prefer writ appeal against the order dated; 06-12-2007 in W.P.No. 14101 of 1996, and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 6.12.2007 in W.P.No. 14101 of 1996, pending disposal of the writ appeal, 'and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ARADHAKRISHNA 2.ARADHA KRISHNA 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J I.A.Nos.l&2of2018 In/and W.A.No.492of2018 The Court made the following Judgment: I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2018 In/And W.A.No.492 of 2018 The respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed W.P.No.1401 of 1996, challenging the acquisition proceedings alienating to their lands admeasuring Ac.3.20 cents of land in Sy.No.129 of Thammavaram Village, Kakinada (Rural) Mandal, East Godavai District. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by way of a common order, in W.P.Nos.1410 of 1996, 515 of 1998, 593 of 1998 & 23405 of 1999, had allowed the Writ Petitions, by setting aside the acquisition proceedings. which had been initiated by way of publication of a notification, under Section 4 (1) as well as declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.12.2007, is 2. sought to be assailed by the applicant herein, by way of W.A.No.492 of 2018. This Writ Appeal was filed on 28.02.2018. As there was a delay of 3705 days in preferring the Writ Appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2018, for condoning the delay, has been filed. It may also be noted that the applicant herein was not a party to the Writ Petition and has also filed I.A.No.2 of 2018, for leave to file the appeal. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J \ I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2018 In/and W.A.No.492of2018 The General Manager (Law) of the applicant has filed an 3. \ application, in support of the application for condonation of delay. 4. The reasons given in the affidavit, for condoning the aforesaid delay, are contained in paragraph Nos.7 & 8, which are extracted here under: / humbly submit that the APIIC, which is the requisitioning authority, was not impleaded in the writ petition, though it was a proper and necessary party. The acquisition was for the benefit of setting up of an Industrial Area by the APIIC. The Corporation ought to have therefore been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. The APIIC is aggrieved by the order, dt.06.12.2007, passed in W.P.No.14101 of 1996 and therefore, it seeks the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to permit writ appeal to be filed against the said order and craves for grant of leave to file writ appeal. 7. / respectfully submit that the present writ appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation and the same is now filed with a delay, which is not willful or wanton, but has been caused due to administrative reasons. The order copy that had been obtained initially could not be traced and subsequently a fresh order copy was obtained on 06.03.2010 and the appeal has been filed. There was some correspondence between the revenue authorities and the APIIC in this connection and the standing counsel was instructed to file a writ appeal. After retrieving the papers relating to the writ petition. 8. 5 .44 RRR, J & TCDS, J I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2018 lo/and W.A.No.492 of 2018 which could not be immediately traced, the same were made ready for the purpose of preparation of the writ appeal. Due to bifurcation of the State and consequent bifurcation of the API1C also, there occurred delay. The same is neither willful nor wanton. If the delay is not condoned, much hardship would be caused to the appellant-APIIC. I crave the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to condone the delay. 5. A perusal of these reasons would show that bald statements have been made without any details. There is no mention as to the date of knowledge of the order nor are there any details of correspondence which is \ \ said to have been carried out between the appellant and other Authorities. 6. An affidavit of this nature, for condonation of 3705 days is wholly insufficient and does not meet the requirements of giving a cogent explanation of such delay. In the case of Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.\ the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering applications for condonation of 7. delay, filed by Statutory Authorities and the State, had held that the State cannot be put on a higher pedestal and that the State would have to explain the delay with cogent reasons. ^ (2012) 3 see 563 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J \ I.A.Nos.l&2of2018 In/and W.A.No.492 of 2018 As no sufficient reasons have been made out, for condonation of 8. delay and for filing the Writ Appeal, both the Interlocutory Applications are dismissed and consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into any of the questions raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Rama Chandra Rao Gurram Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. A Radhakrishna Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:22/09/2025 \ \ ORDER lA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2018 IN/ AND WA NO. 492 OF 2018 DISMISSING BOTH THE IAS AND WA WITHOUT COSTS