JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Govt. Pleader for Assignment, for the appellants and also Sri Mr. K. B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Against the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.40315 of 2017, the State of Andhra Pradesh along with its officials as appellants, has filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 295 days. The application for condonation of delay is registered as I.A.No.1 of 2018. 3. By the aforesaid order, while allowing the Writ Petition, the order dated 27.05.2017 passed by appellant No.3 including the subject land in the list of properties prohibited for registration under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, was set aside. Direction was also issued to appellant No.3 to delete the subject land from such list and appellant No.5 was directed to receive the documents presented by the writ petitioners for the purpose of registration without reference to such prohibitory list and to register the same in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, within four weeks of presentation of documents by the writ petitioners. Appellant No.1 was also directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-to the writ petitioners. 4. At paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, it is stated as follows: “4. Though the Writ Petition was filed on 27-11-2017 and time was granted to the learned Government Pleader for Assignment to get instructions on 30-11-2017 and again on 12-12-2017, learned Government Pleader for Assignment reiterates that the subject land is Government land. He does not dispute the proceedings dt.25-04-2011 addressed by 7th respondent to 3rd respondent stating that the land had already been altered into zeroyiti land on 11-05-2016 and that he recommended to 3rd respondent to delete it from the list of properties prohibited for registration communicated by 3rd respondent under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. No other material is produced by the Government Pleader to take any different view.” 5. Having regard to the proceedings dt.25-04-2011 of 7th respondent certifying that the land had been classified as zeroyiti land on 11-05-2016 itself, stating that and it was wrongly included in the list of prohibited properties communicated under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the stand of the respondents that the land is Government land, cannot be countenanced.” 5. Having regard to the proceedings dt.25-04-2011 of 7th respondent certifying that the land had been classified as zeroyiti land on 11-05-2016 itself, stating that and it was wrongly included in the list of prohibited properties communicated under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the stand of the respondents that the land is Government land, cannot be countenanced.” 5. In the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears that date of the order of the District Collector is wrongly recorded as “11.05.2016” and it should have been recorded as “11.05.2006”, as would be evident from the letter dated 25.04.2011, which is at page 132 of the Writ Appeal papers. 6. The grounds for condonation of delay are set out in paragraph 7 of the I.A. The affidavit for condonation of delay is sworn by appellant No.7-Tahsildar, seeking to explain his inability to prefer appeal within the period of limitation. Explanation is sought to be given only by appellant No.7 and there is no explanation by the other appellants. It is stated by him that he had received copy of the order on 03.02.2018, but the district administration was busy with various programmes such as Open Defecation Programme and Swacha Bharat Programme and that he was given protocol duties for the period from 01.05.2018 to 24.07.2018, and in between he was also given Full Additional Charge to the post of Tahsildar, Gopalapatnam Mandal and Visakhapatnam Urban Mandal from 01.05.2018 to 24.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 to 01.09.2018, respectively. It is stated that he was also engaged with certain work relating to regularization of encroachments. It is also stated by appellant No.7 that appellant No.3 directed him to prefer appeal on 20.10.2018. 7. It is inevitable that any Government functionary would definitely have work to do in discharge of his duties. That by itself cannot be construed to be a sufficient cause for condoning delay. It is that not that appellant No.3, i.e., the District Collector, was not aware of the contents of the order which required implementation of the order within four weeks of presentation of documents by the writ petitioners. Appellant No.3-District Collector has not given any explanation as to what prevented him from preferring the appeal in time. 8. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 9. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed. 10. Appellant No.3-District Collector has not given any explanation as to what prevented him from preferring the appeal in time. 8. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 9. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2018, W.A.No.1637 of 2018 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.