APHC010027642014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33561/2014 Between: Animireddy Sathibabu, E.G. Dist. ...PETITIONER AND Addl Agent To Govt E G Dist 4 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Writ Petition No.33561 of 2014 O R DE R: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the Endorsement, dated 24.08.2014 passed by Respondent No.1 in Ref.CMA.No.61 of 2014, rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner questioning the Order, dated 05.07.2013 in LTRP No.15 of 2011 on the ground of delay as unsustainable. 2. Respondent No.4 had filed LTRP No.15 of 2011 dated 05.07.2013 before the Respondent No.2 questioning the possession of the Petitioner under Section 3(1) of the AP Schedule Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 for restoration of the land of an extent of Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.No.97/1 of Nellimetla Village of Rajavommangi Mandal. As the Petitioner did not respond to the Notices issued, the Respondent No.2 taking note of Section 3 and the Judgments on that aspect, allowed the LTRP vide orders dated 05.07.2013. 3. As the Petitioner was not aware of the Orders passed, an appeal was filed with a delay, and in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay, the Petitioner explained that no notice was issued to him prior to the passing of the Orders by the Respondent No. 2 and therefore, sought for condonation of delay. 3 4. Without examining this aspect, Respondent No.1 vide impugned endorsement dated 24.08.2014 dismissed the application on the ground of delay. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay is not willful or wanton and on account of the Petitioner being unaware of the orders passed in LTRP, dated 05.07.2013, and therefore, the Respondent No. 1 ought to have condoned the delay. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that notices were issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 before passing final orders in LTRP No.15 of 2011 and as there was no response from the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 had passed the Orders of ejectment of the Petitioner from the land. As the Petitioner did not intentionally contest the case, the dismissal of the appeal by the Respondent No.1 cannot be faulted. 7. Heard the respective counsel. 8. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not contest the LTRP No. 15 of 2011 and the reason given by him is that he was unaware of the proceedings in LTRP, and no notice was issued to the Petitioner prior to the disposal of the said case. This aspect was not examined in the impugned order by the respondent No. 1, and he straight away passed the impugned order rejecting the application that the explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the delay is not satisfactory. Secondly, a liberal approach ought to have been 4 adopted by the Respondent No. 1 in condoning the delay especially with regard to immovable property as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust v Smt. Vidhya Devi and others1 as follows: “The decisions of this Court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision- making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A. The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches”. 9. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: i) The Endorsement, dated 24.08.2014, in Ref.CMA.No.61 of 2014 by the Respondent No.1 is set aside. ii) The Respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner on merits as expeditiously as possible. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.03.2026 eha 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P. No.33561 of 2014 Dt. 05.03.2026 eha