Common Judgment:

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. The instant Writ Appeal is one which has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.25219 of 2004, decided on 15.03.2023. Along with the said appeal, the appellants have also filed I.A.No.1 of 2026 praying the Court to condone the delay of 1165 days which has occurred in filing of the appeal.

3. The respondents preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition assailing the proceedings dated 13.05.1994, in CC.No.D1/2780/76, and the consequential orders issued thereto as being violative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The learned Single Bench after hearing both sides, held that since the possession of subject lands was not taken from the respondents and they being rescued under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which came into force in the State of A.P. w.e.f. 27.03.2008 and the ULC proceedings stand abated, the impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition also stand abated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.

4. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to first decide I.A.No.1 of 2026 which is filed with an enormous delay of 1165 days and thereafter, if necessary, proceed to decide the main appeal.

5. The reasons assigned by the appellants in their affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2026 for ready reference are reproduced hereunder, viz.,

               “2. It is submitted that the entire staff and officers are busy with enquiries into the regularization of unauthorized encroachments over the Government land on the application filed under G.O.Ms No, 58 and 59 and subsequent G.Os issued time to time, and also busy with the 2BHK housing programmes from 01-07-2023. In the mean while the Election Commissioner of issued through its reg. No. 23/2023-ERS (Vol. II) dated 24-5-2023, for Special Summary Revision of Photo Electoral Rolls. Accordingly the State Election Commissioner issued instructions vide ref. No. 24113| Elec. B/2023-12 dated 5-7-2023 and 6-7-2023. In compliance with the above orders of the State Election Commission, the Collector, Ranga District, issued orders vide ref. No. H1/1 569/ /2023 dated O6-07-2023, and accordingly the revision of photo electoral Rolls has been Commenced from the 15-7-2023. Subsequently, the Chief Election Commissioner has issued schedule for General Assembly Election-2023 to Telangana State vide Lr.No CEO,GAD (Elections), Telangana, Hyderabad Memo No. 4004/Elecs. D/A1/2023-6 dated: 10-10-2023 and staff were busy with General Assembly Elections.

               3. It is submitted that, even before the Gazette Notification, the employees were assigned duties from the month of October, 2023, and were relieved of their duties, only after (2) weeks, after the elections. As per the instructions of the Government, the Election duties has been performed and the delay occurred in filing appeal. In support of the above Election Notification and orders drafted to the Officer, necessary proceedings have been enclosed.

               4. It is submitted that, pursuant to the Assembly Elections, there was a change in the Government and the new Advocate General was appointed on 01-01-2024. It is submitted that, the Government Pleaders, attached to the office of the Advocate General, were appointed not during the month of February, 2024. Meanwhile, we do have proper channel to proceed the appeal for approval.

               5. It is submitted that, subsequently, Elections Schedule to the Parliamentary Election was announced, the employees were dratted for various election duties from March, 2024 and the schedule is as stated below:



               6. It is submitted that, vide this office circular No.A1/ULC/RR/68/2022 dated 04-07-2024, all the ULC staff were engaged to process of regularization applications and action plan on present ground status of surplus lands which were taken possession under ULC Act. Further, vide Proceedings of the Additional Collector, (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District No. A4/1135/2020 dated 03-08-2024, the ULC staff were engaged to processing of Dharani / Bhubharathi files.”

A bare perusal of the aforesaid submissions makes it amply clear that the reasons assigned by the appellants that the State staff was engaged in matters related to unauthorized encroachments; the State elections being held in the year 2023, regularization of ULC applications and the preparation of action plans concerning surplus lands are neither satisfactory nor a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appellants have also failed to furnish any cogent explanation for the day-to-day delay. Moreover, the mere fact that the State machinery was occupied with some official work or that there was a change in the office of the Advocate General or other officials subsequent to the elections cannot be regarded as a plausible or legally acceptable explanation to justify condonation of delay. Similarly, the parliamentary elections coming in the way and the State staff again being deputed there is again not a valid ground for condonation of delay.

6. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a couple of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject matter.

7. In the case of Shivamma vs. Karnataka Housing Board(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969), it was held that there can be no room for largesse for State lethargy and leisure under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment for ready reference are reproduced hereunder:

               “171. The next submission that was advanced on behalf of the respondents herein is that, in matters pertaining to condonation of delay, a certain degree of leeway ought to be accorded to the Government and Public Authorities owing to the innate complexities in the way the State apparatus functions. The argument is that due to the inherent bureaucracy and involvement of various departments of different hierarchy which are endemic to the functioning of the State and its instrumentalities, unavoidable delays tend to crop up even without any deliberate intention, and thus, the courts ought to be pragmatic and liberal where the State or any of its instrumentalities is seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal or application, as the case may be. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142.

               261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

               262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

               263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

               264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.”

8. Additionally, in the case of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd.( (2012) 3 SCC 563) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law of limitation applies on all parties equally and should not be relaxed merely because of government incurred inaction and negligence on its part of obligations and duties. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.27 to 30 of the said judgment are also reproduced hereunder:

               “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

               28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

               29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

               30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

9. Thus, the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the Writ Appeal not being convincing and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to delays by State authorities in preferring appeals where the explanations offered are vague, unacceptable and not cogent, we are not inclined to entertain the I.A.No.1 of 2026.

10. I.A.No.1 of 2026 fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, W.A.No.629 of 2026 is also dismissed.

11. Even though we are not inclined to entertain the I.A. seeking condonation of delay because of the enormous unexplained delay, yet the Bench feels that it is high time that the State Government looks into this issue. The reason why we have referred the State Government to look into this issue is the fact that in the recent past itself we have come across numerous appeals filed by the State Government with huge enormous delays and in none of these appeals have we found one genuine reason which prevented the State Government from filing the appeals timely. Practically in every appeal, the State Government has taken the routine casual reason of the administrative delay that occurs in the course of getting various approvals and sanctions at different levels for filing of the appeal without giving any specific details date wise to justify the bona fides. Therefore, for the said reason we are compelled to direct the Registry to mark a copy to the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, to look into the matter and particularly look into the aspect as to whether there is any sort of a deliberate action on the part of the Officer for an obvious intention of providing advantage to the opposite side by getting the appeal being filed with an enormous delay.

12. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.