APHC010120072021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.NO: 1 and 2 OF 2021 In/ And CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 381 OF 2021 Between: 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, KURNOOL. 3. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, NOW TAHSIDAR KALLUR MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GREYHOUNDS OFFICE OF D G P LAKIDIKAPOOL HYDERABAD TELANGANA STATE ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. G ARUNDHATHAMMA, W/o. Navamohan Reddy Aged about 53 years, Hindu Rio. Plot No. 647, Shilpa Township, Kurnool ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA The Court made the following Order : 1. The application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 is preferred for condonation delay of 266 days in filing the instance Criminal Revision Petition. I.A.No.2 of 2021 is the application filed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Court below in the instant C.F.R.No.10939 of 2017. As there is a delay in preferring the Civil Revision Petition, I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed by the State. 2. Before going through the entire mater, let me discuss in a nutshell regarding the proceedings disposed of before the learned Court below. The Respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2007 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool seeking for declaration of the fact that the property is not an assigned land or government land and injunction in respect of the property in question. The said suit was decreed on contest on 19.01.2009. After long delay, the District Collector, Kurnool filed an Appeal being Appeal in C.F.R.No.10939 of 2017 with delay of 2888 days. Consequently, on application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay. Such application was turned down by the impugned order, dated 25.03.2019. Hence the revision. 3. Before entertaining the instant revision, as there is a delay, an application being I.A.No.1 of 2021 was preferred. On plain perusal of I.A.No.1 of 2021, it appears that the appellant/ petitioner has disclosed regarding the fact of earlier proceedings, but did not place on record or never pleaded a single sentence or a word regarding the grounds for delay of 266 days in preferring the instant Civil Revision Petition. 4. On query, learned counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Interlocutory Application does not contain any sentence regarding the grounds for condonation of delay. 5. Considering the situation, before entering to decide the matter, application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, being I.A.No.1 of 2021 having no ground for condonation of delay appears to me infructuous and same is hereby dismissed. Consequently another connected Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.2 of 2021 is also dismissed. Since both the Interlocutory Applications are dismissed, this Civil Revision Petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 24.11.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.No. 1 AND 2 OF 2021 IN/ AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 381 OF 2021 Date: 24.11.2025 KK