IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6103 of 2005 Between: Smt.Punam Lingamma, w/o late Chinnabbi, R/o Kasinagaram (V), Bandirevu (Post), Dummagudem (M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Collector/Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Director of Settlements, A.P.Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P.Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dummagudem, Khammam District. 5 Madakam Lakshmi Narasaiah, s/o Ramaiah, 6 Madakam Bheemaiah, s/o Ramaiah, 7 Madakam Adinarayana, s/o Laxminarsaiah, Res.5 to 7 all r/o Chinanallabelli (V), Dummagudem (M), Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus directing the order of the 3rd respondent in CCLA's Ref.No.L1/237/04 dt.28-7-2004 and also proceedings of the respondents 1 and 2 dts.20-2-2002 and 6-1-2003 are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct survey and demarcate the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.12.00 in Sy.No.44/11 situated at Chinnanallaballi (V) Dummagudem (M), Khammam District and then issue patta to the petitioner and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2004 made by the third respondent-Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad in CCLA’s Ref.No.L1/237/04, whereunder the application filed by the husband of the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 425 days in preferring the appeal under Section 9(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation, 2/70 against the DOS, A.P.Hyderabad in D.Dis.No.3108/2002 (G2) dated 06.01.2003, was rejected. According to the petitioner, her husband filed an appeal before the second respondent- Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad and the same was rejected by order dated 06.01.2003. As soon as he came to know about the same, he had applied for the certified copy of the said order and then preferred another appeal before the third respondent along with an application to condone the delay of 425 days in filing the appeal. The husband of the petitioner had also explained the reasons for not filing the appeal in time stating that he belongs to tribal community and that the delay was not deliberate, but due to lack of proper knowledge and also due to ill health. The third respondent has not accepted the explanation offered by the husband of the petitioner and rejected the application filed to condone the delay of 425 days in filing the appeal. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner is a tribal, the Commissioner of Appeals, A.P., Hyderabad would have taken a lenient view in the matter and would not have dismissed the application filed to condone delay in filing the appeal. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the delay is condoned and an opportunity is given to the petitioner, who is a tribal, to present the appeal. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned. The appellate authority is directed to take up the appeal on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.07.2009 va