IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9558 of 2005 Between: Alladi Lakshmi Devi. … Petitioner And Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 26-7-2003 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he declined to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed after lapse of nearly two years. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy for respondent No.4; and perused the record. The petitioner claims that she was assigned an extent of Ac.1-96 cents of land in Survey No.127/1 of Madhuravada village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, in the year 1961. By show-cause notice dated 5-3-2001 respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the land in question shall not be resumed in favour of the Government on the ground that the same was not cultivated within the period of three years from the date of assignment. The petitioner filed her explanation and having considered the same, respondent No.3 resumed the land by order dated 10-4-2001. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 under BSO 15 para-15. Respondent No.2 declined to admit the said appeal on the ground that the same was filed after the period of limitation prescribed under the said order. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is specifically averred that as there was delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner filed an application to condone the same and respondent No.2, without considering the said application and the explanation of the petitioner, declined to entertain the appeal on the ground of delay. Respondent No.3, who filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of himself and respondents 1 and 2 as well, failed to advert to this specific plea. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing on 17-6-2008, this Court adjourned the case to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to produce the record. On 24-6- 2008, on which date the case was again posted, the learned Assistant Government Pleader reported that as the file was not traceable, he is unable to produce the same. This Court, therefore, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, to be personally present before this Court, along with the file, on 1-7-2008. Accordingly, on 1-7-2008, the said Officer was present and he reported that the concerned file is not traceable despite discreet searches. In the absence of the file pertaining to the appeal filed by the petitioner and the respondents not denying the plea of the petitioner relating to her filing an application for condonation of delay, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner has filed such an application, but respondent No.2 failed to consider the same and refused to admit the appeal on the ground of delay. It is not in dispute that under BSO 15, para-15, an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation can be entertained by condoning the delay, if sufficient explanation is offered for the delay. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On this premise, the order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Since it has now come out that the record is not available, it is not possible for respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioner to condone the delay in the absence of the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application for condonation of delay within a period of two weeks from today. On such an application being filed, respondent No.2 shall consider the same after giving notice to respondent No.4 and consider its objections, including the objection that Sri S.Neeleswara Rao, who claims to be the GPA Holder of the petitioner, does not hold proper authority to represent the petitioner. Till the disposal of the proceedings by respondent No.2, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to possession of the land. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:29-07-2008 MNR