IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.679 OF 2003 Between: District Collector, Mahaboobnagar …Petitioners A n d Smt.Nagamma and six others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.679 OF 2003 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-07-2002 in I.A.No.275 of 2001 in an unregistered A.S.No. of 2001, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein for condonation of delay of 406 days in preferring the appeal, was dismissed.. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.82 of 1994 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule land which is stated to be a government tank bed. The respondents claim title by adverse possession. After full-fledged trial, the suit was partly decreed granting the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the suit insofar as the declaration of title is concerned. The plea of perfection of title by adverse possession raised by the respondents/plaintiffs was also rejected. However, having regard to the fact that the evidence on record showed that the respondents/plaintiffs were in possession of the land, the trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of the relief of declaration of title, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2000. The petitioners herein contested the said appeal. After regular hearing, by judgment dated 21- 03-2002, A.S.No.18 of 2000 was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The petitioners herein did not prefer any appeal insofar as the relief of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court in plaintiffs’ favour. They have not filed the appeal even while A.S.No.18 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs was being heard and disposed of. Subsequent to disposal of A.S.No.18 of 2000 on 21-03-2001, the petitioners filed appeal on 06-11-2001 along with an application to condone the delay of 406 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the delay occurred while obtaining copies of the judgment and decree and depositions from the trial Court. It is to be noted that the petitioners/defendants have participated in hearing of the appeal A.S.No.18 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs. The petitioners never bothered to take any steps to file any independent appeal on their own during the pendency of A.S.No.18 of 2000 or subsequently also. It was about eight months after disposal of A.S.No.18 of 2000 that the petitioners have thought of filing the present appeal. 4. There is absolutely no reason for not taking any steps to prefer an appeal in time or at least during the pendency of the other appeal A.S.No.18 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs. The delay in filing the appeal by the petitioners is not satisfactorily explained. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order, dismissing the application does not, therefore, call for any interference. However, this does not preclude the petitioners-State from taking appropriate steps against the respondents in accordance with and by due process of law for their eviction in the event of the suit land being a government tank bed, as alleged by them. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th April, 2011 Lrkm