P.S.Narayana.,J. - (1.) This is an unfortunate long drawn litigation wherein the petitioners are claiming property rights over the subject matter of controversy and the Government and the local body denying the same.
(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners as against an order made by the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in I.A.No.245/99 in A.S.(CFR) NO.858/99, dated 10-11-2000. Though the factual details are too numerous, the question involved in the present Civil Revision Petition is simple i.e., Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1210 days or 1178 days as the case may be, in preferring the Appeal. The facts in nutshell which had paved the way for the petitioners filing the present Civil Revision Petition are as hereunder: Smt.Rangamma and Smt.Lakshmamma who are no more and are being represented by the legal representatives, shown as petitioners 4 to 8 and petitioners 11 to 15 in the present Civil Revision Petition filed O.S.No.96/73 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool against the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Collector, Mahaboobnagar as 1st defendant and the Secretary, Zilla Parishad, as the 2nd defendant and the Block Development Officer, Nagarkurnool as the 3rd defendant, praying for a decree of separate possession of Acs.2-02 guntas out of Acs.9-22 guntas of land in S.No.369 of Nagarkurnooll town, Mahaboobnagar District. The 3rd plaintiff had purchased Ac.1-00 out of Acs.2-02 guntas from the aforesaid plaintiffs 1 and 2. The stand taken by the plaintiffs was that one late Srinivas Rao was the original owner of an extent of Acs.9-22 guntas in S.No.369 of Nagarkurnool town and during the year 1350 Fasli the Government had acquired an extent of Acs.7-20 guntas out of the total extent of Acs.9-22 guntas. But however the said area of Acs.7-20 guntas was not demarcated on the site and thus the plaintiffs and the defendants therein have been in joint possession of Acs.9-22 guntas and in spite of repeated demands since the defendants had not separated the extent of Acs.2-02 guntas, the plaintiffs were left with no other option except to institute the aforesaid suit.
(3.) The 1st defendant in the suit filed a written statement taking a plea that Acs.2-02 guntas of land had been demarcated on 25-11-1972 itself and hence the suit as framed itself is not maintainable. The 3rd defendant also filed a separate written statement pleading that the Gram Panchayat, Nagarkunrool by resolution dated 16-5-1957 had gifted Acs.2-00 to the Head Master, Junior Basic School Nagarkurnool and possession was delivered to him on 24-5-1957. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 18-3-1974 and the defendants preferred A.S.No.93/74 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar and the same was dismissed on 26-2-1976. The unsuccessful appellants/defendants had made yet another attempt by filing S.A.(SR) No.33805/76 with an application for condonation of delay in presenting the Appeal and the delay was condoned on terms and since the costs had not been paid, the said Second Appeal was dismissed on 26-12-1976. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.198/80 in O.S.No.96/73 for passing of final decree and the same was allowed on 6-5-1981. As against the said final decree, defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.60/82 on the file of District Judge, Mahaboobnagar and the learned District Judge had made an order of remand for equitable division making certain observations. The plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.1010/84 as against the order of remand and at this stage, it appears, a serious attempt was made to settle this dispute amicably. However, the fact remains that the plaintiffs had withdrawn C.M.A.No.1010/84 on 14-10-1988. When the matter was taken up by the trial Court for passing final decree, an objection was raised by the defendants that the suit land is an inam land and hence both the preliminary decree and the final decree proceedings are null and void. The said objections were held to be untenable by an order dated 1-8-1995. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for separation of Acs.2-02 guntas and a report also was filed. Though specific objections had been raised on the ground that the land is inam land and hence the preliminary decree and the final decree are null and void, the said contentions were not accepted and the trial Court passed final decree on 8-3-1996. The plaintiffs aforesaid interse had compromised the matter and filed I.A.No.110/96 before the trial court for passing final decree in terms of compromise and the said application was rejected and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.42/96 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool wherein the defendants also were made parties and the said C.M.A. was allowed on 4-10-1996 and in view of the same, the trial Court passed a final decree on 6-10-1996.;