IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3950 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Smt. Sheela B.Belani …PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, and others. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.3950 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Refusal Order No.14 of 2010 dated 20.07.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent, was rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The petitioner claims to have purchased part of premises situated in the ground floor of Om Plaza bearing M.C.H.No.7-1- 621/107, with built up area of 1293 sq. feet, and car parking of 200 sq. feet along with undivided share of land admeasuring 47 sq. yards out of the total land of 447.32 sq. yards situated at S.R. Nagar main road, Hyderabad. When he presented the document before the 3rd respondent for registration, the 3rd respondent kept the same pending by assigning P.No.367/2010 and, ultimately, passed Refusal Order dated 20.07.2010, on the ground that this Court in CCCAMP.No.818 of 2007 in CCCA.No.314 of 2007 ordered the respondents therein not to create any 3rd party rights in respect of 1/3rd of the suit schedule property on such development and also the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in I.A.No.3818 of 2008 in O.S.No.572 of 2008 issued orders not to alienate the property till 21.11.2008. Aggrieved by such refusal order dated 20.07.2010, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20102 of 2010 before this Court and the same is pending. The petitioner asserts that as per orders dated 13.11.2007 passed in CCCAMP.No.818 of 2007 in CCCA No.314 of 2007, his vendor was restricted not to create any third party rights in respect of 1/3rd of the suit schedule property only, as such, there is no hurdle from alienating the remaining 2/3rd of the scheduled property. The petitioner also averred that subsequent to filing of W.P.No.20102 of 2010, I.A.No.3818 of 2008 in O.S.No.572 of 2008 was dismissed by order dated 22.11.2010, therefore, he filed appeal along with an application, seeking condonation of delay, before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2011, rejecting the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the Refusal order No.14 of 2010 dated 20.07.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was ill advised to file a writ petition before this Court, however subsequently, the petitioner filed appeal along with an application, seeking condonation of delay, before the 2nd respondent and that the delay in filing the said appeal is neither intentional nor willful. Learned counsel further submits that W.P.No.20102 of 2010, pending before this court, will be withdrawn by filing appropriate application within a week. As seen from the record, the petitioner though initially filed W.P.No.20102 of 2010 challenging the refusal order dated 09.02.2011 of the 3rd respondent, subsequently, after expiry of the statutory period of limitation, he filed appeal along with an application, for condonation of delay, before the 2nd respondent, challenging the very same refusal order dated 09.02.2011 of the 3rd respondent. This conduct of the petitioner clearly evidences his strong intention of challenging the refusal order dated 09.02.2011. Thus, in view of the above and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that W.P.No.20102 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, which is pending before this Court, will be withdrawn by filing an appropriate application within a week, I am of the considered opinion that a lenient view can be taken in this matter and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent. The delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent is condoned and the 2nd respondent is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 21.02.2011 INL/VV