APHC010102492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5858/2026 Between: 1. BALASA JAGAN MOHAN RAO, S/O SURYARAO, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RETD. TEACHER, R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE. 533 285. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE. 522 238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA, PIN CODE. 533 001. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHODAVARAM, POLAVARAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE. 533 288. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TRIBAL WELFARE, GANGAVARAM (AGENCY) MANDAL, POLAVARAM 2 DISTRICT, PIN CODE. 533 284. 5. MURRAM RAJANNA DORA, S/O CHALLANNA DORA, R/O RAJAVARAM VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, POLAVARAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE. 533 428 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Order passed by the 1St respondent in Lr.No.1077467/LTR-2/2018, dt 07.03.2018 rejecting the Revision filed by the petitioner under the Provisions of AP Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations on the ground of delay is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural Justice and consequently set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in Lr.No.1077467/LTR-2/2018, dt 07.03.2018, in the interest of Justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 leased to suspend the order passed by the 1st respondent in Lr.No.1077467/LTR- 2/2018, dt: 07.03.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.5858 OF 2026 O R D E R: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the order passed by Respondent No.1 in Lr.No.1077467/LTR-2/2018, dated 07.03.2018, rejecting the revision filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations on the ground of delay, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows:- The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had initiated proceedings for ejectment of the Petitioner from an extent of Ac.9.00 Cents in Sy.No.33/3, 34, and 35/1 situated at Rajavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations before Respondent No.3. The case was registered as L.T.R.P.No.487/1978 before Respondent No.3. After enquiry, the Respondent No.3 vide orders dated 22.10.1980, allowed the L.T.R.P.No.487/1978 and directed possession of the property be restored to the Respondent No.5. 4 3. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed appeal vide C.M.A.No.90 of 1980 before the Respondent No.2 through an advocate. It was submitted that the appeal was dismissed for default on 31.01.1986. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was unaware of this dismissal of the appeal for a long time and had filed a revision on 08.02.2018 before Respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959. 4. It was further submitted that as the revision that was filed by the Petitioner was not being disposed of, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.26982 of 2024 seeking for disposal of the revision, and this Court disposed of the W.P.No.26982 of 2024 on 22.11.2024, directing the Respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As the directions passed by this Court were not being complied with, the Petitioner filed C.C.No.2148 of 2025, and during the pendency of the aforesaid Contempt Case, the Petitioner was informed of the disposal of the revision on 07.03.2018 by Respondent No.1. 5 5. It was further submitted that while rejecting the revision, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner and the revision was disposed of by the Respondent No.1 in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the revision was disposed of without offering an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is in violation and not in consonance with principles of natural justice. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare would submit that the appeal was dismissed for default in the year 1986 and the revision was filed by the Petitioner on 08.02.2018 i.e., after a lapse of 32 years and therefore, the rejection of the revision cannot be faulted. 8. Heard the respective counsel. 9. The revision was filed under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, on 08.02.2018, questioning the dismissal of the appeal for default 6 dated 31.01.1986, which is after a lapse of 32 years. In the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in the revision, it was submitted that the Petitioner had suffered with partial paralysis from 01.07.1990 to 03.11.2017 and has been undergoing treatment at Srinivasa Hospital, Korukonda, East Godavari District. 10. The explanation of the Petitioner is far from satisfactory by any stretch and a delay of 32 years in filing the revision is abnormal to even consider the condonation. Further, there is no explanation with regard to delay from 1986 to 1990 i.e., for more than four (04) years. The Petitioner having engaged a counsel to attend C.M.A.No.90 of 1980 ought to have followed up with regard to the outcome of the aforesaid C.M.A and there is no explanation for his inability to follow up with his counsel. 11. In similar scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal vs. State of West Bengal1 at Paragraph No.57 held as under:- “57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible 1 (2009) 1 SCC 768 7 opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai(AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court(AIR 1967 SC 1450) and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India(1992 3 SCC 136: 1992 21 ATC 675 : 1992 2 SCR 969). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969 1 SCC 110), Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports (1969 1 SCC 185) and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India(1970 1 SCC 84).” 12. Therefore, this Court did not find any merit in the Writ Petition or any error in the order passed by the revisional authority, and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 02.03.2026 chs 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 197 WRIT PETITION NO:5858/2026 Dt. 02.03.2026 chs