HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 14822 OF 2002 Dated 27th January, 2010 Between: Dantuluri Viswanatha Raju ………Petitioner And The Joint Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada and seven othrs ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 : None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order dated 15-03-2002 in AP No. 9/98 (SA) passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner was granted a ryotwari patta in respect of 7.30 hectares of land in Survey No. 26 of Regulapadu Village in Dutcherthi Mutha, which was part of erstwhile Yellavaram Taluk of East Godavari District by respondent No.4 by his order dated 16-12-1974. 23 ½ years later, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before respondent No.1 seeking setting aside of the order of respondent No.4 granting ryotwari patta. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the delay condonation petition. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order ordered condonation of delay, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3 and set aside the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner. In spite of notices, no one represented respondent Nos.5 to 8 at the hearing. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. I have heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 failed to offer sufficient reasons for condonation of a huge delay and that the reason given by respondent No.1 for condonation of delay is wholly unsustainable. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue however sought to support the order passed by respondent No.1. In his order, respondent No.1 while considering the application for delay stated as under: “The issue whether appeals which were filed after years of the due date could be entertained or not was thoroughly examined in W.A No. 1879/88 and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in Order dated 11-8-1989 categorically observed as follows: “Relief under Art.226 is discriminatory and it ought not to be exercised as to defeat a lawful claim particularly that of States Revenue”. In the instant case also we are very much concerned with the public property and the delay is not so inordinate as to render exercise of suomotu power by the Director of Settlements, as not within reasonable time, particularly in view of many circumstances mentioned above. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal. No costs. The Director of Settlements is directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously.” In view of the above, there is no bar to entertain time barred appeals in the interests of Justice and as such the delay is condoned.” The aforestated reasoning of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. While respondent No.1 is conferred with the power to condone delay, the sine qua non for exercising such power is his satisfaction that the party has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The judgment on which respondent No.1 purportedly placed reliance pertains to the power of this Court to condone delay while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court being a constitutional Court is vested with the plenary powers while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.1 cannot equate himself with that of the High Court while exercising his statutory powers which are limited to the extent such powers are expressly conferred on him. Respondent No.1 failed to keep this vital distinction in mind while dealing with the application filed by respondent No.3 to condone a huge delay of nearly 25 years. The intendment of law in stipulating limitation is to prevent settled rights from being unsettled after a long lapse of time. Unless, proper and sufficient reasons are assigned for condonation of delays, the legislative purpose of stipulation of limitation will be frustrated. As respondent No.1 failed to deal with the reasons, if any, offered by respondent No.3 for not filing the appeal for a number of years, the impugned order to the extent respondent No.1 has condoned the delay cannot be sustained in law. Unless delay is properly condoned, respondent No.1 cannot dispose of the appeal on merits. Afortiori, the order passed by respondent No.1 on merits is also equally unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for disposing of the same afresh. Respondent No.1 shall before deciding the appeal on merits, dispose of the application filed by respondent No.3 for condonation of delay by passing a reasoned order with reference to the cause shown by respondent No.3 for committing inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the objections contained in the counter filed by the petitioner. Depending upon the result in the delay condonation application, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the appeal on merits thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 27th January, 2010 ks