JUDGMENT
Satyabrata Sinha, C.J.
1. The appellant No.3 herein, the Settlement officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, oral and documentary, by an order dated 30.11.1976, in proceedings SR/11(1) 13/76 granted ryotwari patta in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act holding that the tank situated in S.Nos.99/2 and 101/2 in Korukonda village, East Godavari District is a private tank and that the ancestors of the writ petitioner were using the water of the said tank for irrigation of their lands for over 100 years. Against this order a revision had to be preferred by the Tahsildar/MRO within 30 days from the date of the order i.e., 30.11.1976. But it was not done nor the order dated 30.11.1976 was implemented by the Tahsildar/MRO. Aggrieved by that, the writ petitioner-respondent filed W.P.No.10680 of 1984 seeking a direction upon the MRO to implement the order of the Settlement Officer, dated 30.11.1976. When the Rule Nisi in the said writ petition was received by the Tahsildar/MRO, he filed a belated revision before the Director of Settlements on 18.8.1984 together with an application to condone the delay, which was returned on 15.10.1984 and was resubmitted on 8.1.1985 finally. Thus a delay of 8 years 9 days was occasioned in preferring the revision by the Tahsilder/MRO before the Director of Settlements. In the affidavit affirmed by the Tahsildar accompanying the application seeking to condone the abnormal delay of 8 years 9 days, the Tahsildar stated:
1. “After the orders of the Settlement officer were received in the office, a letter was addressed to the Collector, East Godavari seeking direction in the matter, and the case was referred to the Government Pleader Rajahmundry for opinion.
2. The opinion of the Government Pleader was received on 27.7.1984 stating that there are grounds for filing the revision petition before the Director of Settlements.
3. After the receipt of the opinion and necessary sanction he could file the revision petition after getting the same drafted by the Special Government Pleader at Hyderabad and the revision petition was presented. The same was returned with N.Dis.AA1/5258/84 dated 15.10.1984 of the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad for supplying certain omissions. After supplying the omissions the revision petition is presented.”
2. The Director of Settlements, however, condoned the said abnormal delay by his order dated12.12.1988 which was challenged before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records by the writ petitioner. The Commissioner, by his order dated 25.8.1990 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Director. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.2007 of 1991 was filed before this Court. A learned single judge of this Court by order dated 27th September,2000 has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 12.12.1988 passed by the Director as confirmed by the Commissioner in his order dated 25.8.1990. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge, the respondents in the writ petition have brought the present appeal.
3. Before both the revisional authority (Director) as also the Commissioner, the writ petitioner-first respondent raised a contention that no explanation far less a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the Tahsildar as regards the inordinate delay caused during the period from 10.12.1976 to 31.12.1984 in filing the revision. The Commissioner in his order imgpuend in the writ application did not assign any reason nor recorded any finding to the effect that satisfactory explanation was offered by the Tahsildar. Learned Commissioner, placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in RAME GOWDA v. SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, did not consider any other materials on record and dismissed the revision application. The learned single judge, in an elaborate judgment, not only considered the effect of the said decision in Rame Gowda’s case but also considered other decisions reported in STATE OF A.P. THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR MAHBUBNAGAR v. SAYANNA, ; COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY,SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS A.P. v. SARADDY KANAKAMMA, and N.BALAKRISHNAN v. M.KRISHNAMURTHY, whereupon the parties placed reliance and held that administrative reasons cannot by itself be a ground for condonation of such an inordinate delay of 8 years 9 days especially in the absence of any explanation being offered by the Tahsildar in his affidavit. Accordingly, he set aside the order 12.12.1988 passed by the Director as affirmed by the Commissioner in his order dated 25.8.1990.
4. Having regard to the statements made in the affidavit affirmed by the Tahsildar accompanying the application seeking to condone the delay in preferring the revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, we are of the opinion that no explanation whatsoever, far less any satisfactory explanation has been rendered. It may be true that Courts consider the matter as regards condonation of delay leniently, especially when the Government is a party and condonation of delay is sought on its behalf. Although the Apex Court held in RAMLAL v. REWA COALFIELDS LTD, that the applicant must explain day-to-day delay, which dicta had not been found favour with in the later decisions of the Apex Court and particularly in COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG v. KATIJI, still, there cannot be any doubt that at least some plausible explanation must be offered even if day-to-day explanation is not required to be explained. Furnishing of sufficient cause is a sine qua non for condonation of delay and howsoever lenient the Court may be, it cannot condone the grossest inaction on the part of the State in not preferring revision for such a long time. The State, although, may deserve a more lenient view than an ordinary litigant in matters relating to condonation of delay in filing revision/appeal etc., but the same would not mean that such an order can be passed even if no explanation whatsoever is offered.
5. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where, this Court should interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
