1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2018 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh in FAIA 771/2017 and FASR 2133/2017. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the respondents. 3. Challenge is to the order dated 20.03.2018 of the State Commission vide which his application for condonation of delay of 437 days was rejected and consequently, the Appeal was also dismissed. In his affidavit filed before the State Commission for condonation of delay, interalia following point was mentioned : “5. It is submitted that order in CC No. 72 / 2015 was pronounced on 30.06.2016, order copy was delivered on 05.07.2016 vide dispatch no. 194. After obtaining certified copy of the order our standing counsel sent the same on 10.08.2016 to the district office. The District Office, in turn forwarded the file to Head Office on 15.09.2016 and head Office gave the file to its standing counsel for opinion on 25.09.2017, and standing counsel returned the file along with opinion on 29.09.2017 and later the case was allotted to our standing counsel for filing appeal on 06.10.2017. Hence there occurred the delay of days in preferring appeal.” 4. During the hearing, the counsel pleaded that dates 10.08.2016 and 15.09.2016 are typographical errors and the said dates may be read as 10.08.2017 and 15.09.2017. However, such a plea of typographical error was not taken before the State Commission. Hence, we are not in a position to accept such plea at this stage. 5. State Commission has looked into the detailed reasons for delay / grounds for delay stated in the affidavit as well as those adduced during the hearing before the State Commission. The State Commission did not feel convinced with the sufficiency of the cause of delay and hence rejected the condonation of delay application. 6. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the parties. Ultimately it is the satisfaction of the State Commission about the sufficiency of cause for delay and we cannot substitute our satisfaction unless we find any illegality or material irregularity in the order of State Commission while considering the condonation of delay application. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission in rejecting the condonation of delay application. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s cases in ‘Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81’, ‘Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649]’ and ‘Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 321]’ , we are of the considered view that State Commission was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay application. We also do not find the reasons convincing. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld. Revision Petition is dismissed. 7. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
