IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17716 of 2005 Between: Teegala Madhava Reddy and four others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the writ petitioner. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) against order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, under Section 40 of the Act. Along with the said appeal, the petitioners filed an application to condone the delay of 1467 days in filing the said appeal. In the said application, they have stated that petitioner No.1 is one of the grand sons of original protected tenant-Sri Teegala Narasaiah @ Narasa Reddy. The said Narasaiah had two sons, by name, Teegala Sathi Reddy and Teegala Venkata Reddy. Teegala Sathi Reddy had three sons, by name, Teegala Madhava Reddy (Petitioner No.1 herein), Teegala Mohan Reddy and Teegala Chandra Reddy, while Teegala Venkata Reddy, another son of Teegala Narasaiah, had two sons, by name, Teegala Sanjeeva Reddy and Teegala Madhava Reddy. It is further stated that after the demise of Sri Teegala Narasaiah, his sons, Sathi Reddy, who is the father of petitioner No.1, and his brother Venkata Reddy filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar under Section 40; that pending the said petition Sathi Reddy died and the paternal uncle of petitioner No.1, Sri Venkata Reddy, impleaded petitioner No.1 and his brother Chandra Reddy, along with other heirs of his father, as parties to the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue officer; and that though they were impleaded as parties, their paternal uncle Sri Venkata Reddy used to look after the proceedings. It is further stated that the said Venkata Reddy also passed away on 25-12-2003; that after the demise of their paternal uncle, they approached the Advocate, who was looking after the case, to find out the stage of the proceedings; that the Advocate informed them that the record was found misplaced; and that it was only a week prior to the filing of the appeal that the Advocate informed that the record was available with him. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application for condonation of delay was rejected by stating that the explanation offered by the petitioners is neither cogent nor satisfactory. Appeal under Section 90 is a valuable remedy provided by the statute to the persons aggrieved by an order passed under Section 40 of the Act. Power is vested in the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing such an appeal. Where the appellate authority is satisfied that the appeal could not be filed on account of sufficient reasons, he shall entertain the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits. The appellate authority while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay cannot proceed in a light hearted manner. It is bound to apply its mind to the reasons offered by the appellants for the delay in filing the appeals, lest the object of the legislature in providing remedy of appeal will get frustrated. Respondent No.1 in rejecting the application for condonation of delay did not refer to any of the facts pleaded by the petitioners and give reasons for his coming to the conclusion that the explanation furnished by the petitioners is neither cogent nor satisfactory. It is incumbent upon him to delve into the facts pleaded by the petitioners and give sufficient reasons for rejecting their explanation. As respondent No.1 failed to make such an approach and summarily rejected the application in a perfunctory manner, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioners, afresh, and pass appropriate orders thereon. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25-06-2008 MNR