STATE OF A P Vs. MOHD MOHIUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.M.P. No. 21986 of 1989 is filed by respondents 1 to 4 in Writ Petition to condone the delay of two years and nine days in filing the Review W.P. MP. (SR No. 73004/89). In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the deponent states that he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda on 4-2 1989 and as soon as he came to know of the facts of the case, he filed this review petition to safeguard the property of the Government. It is staled that the delay in filing the 'Writ Appeal' is neither wilful nor negligent and is caused due to the reasons and circumstances given thereunder. The reasons given are that since the time the order in the writ petition was passed steps had been taken initially to implement the said order and also to collect material regarding the rights of the appellant in the disputed land in order to file an appeal against the order. It is stated-

(2.) Though the second respondent is one of the petitioners in the first mentioned W.P. M.P., yet he filed a separate review petition along with this petition to condone the delay of 677 days in filing the review petition. In support of the petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer filed an affidavit stating that the writ petition was allowed on October 29, 1987 and immediately after receipt of the order from the High Court, on 21-11-1987, a letter was addressed by the District Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take immediate action for implementing the order. On 28-11-1987 the Revenue Divisional Officer requested the Superintendent of Police to send proposals for acquisition of the land as per the said judgment of the High Court. Thereafter, it is stated that repeated reminders were sent but it was only on June 24, 1989 the proposals were sent to acquire the land. Immediately thereafter the District Collector initiated Land acquisition proceedings on June 29, 1989. On 27-7-1989 the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a tetter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanapur and to the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records) to submit the enjoyment particulars. After receiving the particulars, it is found that survey numbers in question (463/1 PN and 464/2 PN) are not existing in Narayanapur village as per the survey records and village map; the buildings and the land occupied by the police station Narayanapur, comprising of an extent of Ac. 3-36 guntas, were found to be part of the Gramakantam even at the time of the original survey of the village and that on further verification it is revealed that S.No. 463/1 PN and 464/2 PN which never existed earlier, were brought into existence by the then village officer, Sri M.V. Rama Shankar, with an ulterior motive with effect from 1974-75 in place of 'Udapha' (Izafa) Survey numbers 1 and 2 of Narayanapur village and that the land occupied by the police station is presently located in Gramkantam land the owner of which is recorded as police station. Therefore, the petitioners have no manner of right in or title to the said land, hence the review petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the review petitions are hopelessly time-barred and are filed mala fide; in the main writ petition itself the petitioners have not chosen to file counter to explain their stand and only when a contempt case was filed and was admitted by the High Court, the petitioners have filed the review petition.