IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1088 of 2008 Between: 1 Mohd.Mahaboob Ali, S/o Abbas Ali, R/o 9-3-125/127, M.D.Lane, Toli Chowk, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd.Jahangir Ali, s/o Late Mohd.Ahmed Ali, 3 Mohd.Zanulabedin, S/o Mohd.Ahmed Ali, Both Occ:Business r/o 19-4-372/12/34, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Smt.Ghousia Bee, w/o Basheer Ahmed, 2 Smt.Razak Bee, W/o Mohd.Abbas, (Both R/o (V) Chinnamangalaram (M), Moinabad, R.R.District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division at Attapur, R.R.District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or mandamus, certiorari or anyother writ, order or direction against passing of memo No.C/863/2007 dt.05-05-2007 by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, R.R.District in rejecting the appeal alongwith delay petition as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, opposed to public policy, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same, alternatively the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella (at Attapur), R.R.District directed for de novo enquiry to pass orders in accordance with law and award costs andpass suchother orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity, otherwise the petitioners will be put to irreparable injury and loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR K.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo No.C/863/2007 dt.05-05-2007 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in rejecting the appeal observing that there is no ground for condonation of delay of 9 years in filing the appeal. It is the case of the petitioners that the delay has been properly explained in paragraph 9 of the grounds of appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Revenue Divisional Officer without assigning any reasons dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 9 years. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the grounds of appeal also do not indicate as to when the petitioners came to know about the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 30.08.1997 and no specific reasons have been furnished in the grounds of appeal and in the absence of any application to condone the delay, it cannot be found fault with the Revenue Divisional Officer. But, however, the impugned memo does not indicate any reason for rejecting the appeal except saying that there is no ground to condone the delay. Whether the ground is sufficient ground or not and whether the delay is properly explained or not, these are the matters to be considered by the appellate authority. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned memo and the matter is remanded to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh as to whether the delay has to be condoned or not by passing a reasoned order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:29.02.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}