3f '*9"0" v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction' particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the respondents in not updating the entries in DharaniPortalpursuanttoOnlineApplicationNo'2500006265'dated02'A1'2025 inrespectoflandadmeasuringAc2.23gtsinSy.No.44Ssituatedat Vattinagulapally village, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District for incorporation the name of legal heirs of original lnamdar pursuant to Form-lll' dated 7'4'2000 vide File No.L/4032/1998 issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer' I I I I i ) j I j l chevella Division as ille,lal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,1q and 300-4 of the constitution or' rrlia and consequenfly direct the 4th respondent to consider the aforesaid online lpplication dated 2.1 .zozs and pass orders cn merits after conducting necess;a n er quiry as rdquired under law. lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Ser:tion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir sLrpport of the petition, the High court rray be pleased to direct the respond,3lt; tc, consider the Online Application No.2t;0cr006265, dated 02.01 .2025 submitkr,J by the petitioners for updating the entries in Dharani portat in respect of land :rrlmr:asuring Ac 2.23gts in sy.No.44B sitr.rared at vattina- gulapally village, ciz nJip,:t Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for inr;orcoration of the names of the petiti rrers; who are the legal heirs of original lnamdar, pending disposal of the above , writ petition. Counsel for the Petiti,rner: SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Resp,:nclents: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER r) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT ON No. 4239 of 2o'2s I ORDER: This writ petition is frled praytng this Court to declare the action of respondents in not updating the entries in Dharani Portal pursuant to Online Application No'250OOO6267' dated O2.O1.2O25 in respect of land adrneasuring Ac'2 '23 guntas in Sy.No.448 situated 1J Vattinagulapally Village' Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' for incorporation of the names of the legal heirs of original Inamdar pursuant to Form-III' dated o7.o4.2ooo, vide file No,Ll4o32|1998 issued by the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Chevella Division' as illegal and arbitrary and consequently prayed for other appropriate relicfs' It is stated that thp petitioners' grandfather was Inamdar 2. and was in occupation of tle lands in Sy'No'1O5 Ac'O '24 guntas and Sy.No.44 8 Ac'2 '23 guntas situated at Vattinagulapalle Village' It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Oflicer' Rajendranagar Mandal' addressed a letter No'B/3316/98' dated 24.Og.lgg8,to the Revenue Divisional Oflicer' Chevella Division' and submitted a report about the nature of the land and its classihcation and issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of petitioners' grandfather under the provisions of the 2 CVBR, J t*'p_,+239]025 lu'ea Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and t.:re Rules made ther,e I rndr:r. It is further stated that even after the ORC is issued :n lz..,orrr of petitioners' graldfather, neither their grandfather {i name nor the narnes of the successors h,:rve been recorded i;r t h e revenue records and as such, the pe,titioners have made arL acplication in Dharani portal seeking to mutate their names n the revenue records and consequentie[ issuaace of pattadar Ir a sstrook in their favour. 3 Consirl,::cd the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa.rries rrnd with their consent this writ 1lel.ition is disposed af a I the admission stage 4' It apportrs that while the oRC was granted in fa vour of the petitiorr,:-;' grandfather vide File No.L/4032/9g d,ated, 07.O4.2O0O, rhe peritioners submitted Online App)ication No.250O0O62(i z, Cated O2.Oi.2O2S seeking mutatiorL c,f tleeir narnes in l hr: r lve ttue records.

5. As ;rer riection 4 of the Telangana Rigits in I^and and Pattadar Pass Ilooks Act, lg7l (for short "the ROR Act:., l9|l,), any person a(),-r Lliring by succession, survivorship, inh.eritance, partition, (iovlrnment patta, clecree of a court or otherwise any i- 3 CVB& J wp-an9]025 right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee' occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Offrcer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition'

6. Admittedly, in the instant case' tJle petitioner has not made any such application either before the original authority or before the revisional authority seeking implementation of the ORC alleged to have been issued in the name of their , withifl ninetY daYs as Prescribed grandfather in the Year 2OOO under the ROR Act, 1971'

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court' while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches' in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Digambarr' observed as under:- 'A three-Judge Bench of t]:is Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v' Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service' Amravati & Ors' [1969 (f] SCR 8O8l' reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delay as that which applied in .*...i". of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitutron Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction' order ' (re95) suPj! t scR 4 CVB& J lt.p-4239_2025 or q:rit 1t I grznting relief to a person including a citizen with)ut consicle -:r g his disentitlement for such relief due to his blalne- worth]' )I1duct of undue delay or laches in claiming the sarne, such ;;L iuection, orrier or writ becomes unsustainable as that not marlr judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sou od judicial Cir;cretion, but as that made arbitrarily. X X,K Thus, 'vren the writ petitioner (respondent here) was guilty of un<Iue delay in approaching the High Court, the laches r r laches or undue delay adverted principte to above, t:re writ petitioner (respondent disentitlr:r1 here) Iitr discretio-rary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution from the Iligt | )ou rt, particularly, lvhen virtually no attempt hti.d been male by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- lvorttLy condrrc: cf unlue delay or laches. The High Court, therefor,:, was rvholl,., rvrong in granting relief in relation to inquiring into the allega rcn and granting compensation for his land allegcd to have b::n rsed for scarcity relief road works in the vear 197 t.7tt.. . . "

8. In rh,: :ase of Mrinomy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others2, the t{tn'ble Supreme Court observed as under: 'This Courr time and again has held that delay defeats eqtritl. Delay or rr( hes is one of the factors which should be born ir.r mind r.\. tf r High Court u,hite exercising discretionary powerr:r under Art <l: 2'.16 of the Constitution of India. [n a given case the High (tr) tn may refuse to in!,oke its extraordinary po\a,et.s il. laxity orL tt e F'art of the applicant to assert his right [ar; a-llorved rt (. caLls€ o[ action to drift arvay and attempts ar(l made sulrsrr uently to rekindle the lap sed cause of ac tion" '?1zozn; + scR. soo 5 CVBR. J Wp-a239)025 In the instant case' it is e-vident that the petitioners are 9. not diligent in pursuing the matter -by P^F tg application for issuance of pattadar pass books soon after obtaining ORC when the ROR Act, 1971 was in force' Adrnittedly' the ROR Act' l97l has been repealed and replaced with the Telangana Riglrts in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act' 2O2O' At this belated stage' if the application submitted by the petitioners is considered' it would not onlY cause hardshiP to the Persons who are enjoYing the subject ProPerty but would also disturb tJ:e settled position over the said ProPertY' 10.. Therefore, the writ Petition as frled bY the Petitioners rs misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed' shall be no order as to costs' There As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending' if any'

11. shall stand closed' SD/- P.Ch. N SI AGABHUSHAMBA ,/' nttr ReetSfneR / /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER the State of Telangana at To,

1. One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO' Advocate [O ? Twe CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for HYderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP CAP HIGH COURT DATED: 131A,2'.12025 ORDER WP.No.4239 of 2025 e) c f+i=S; €I o o 3 0 '1A 2075 - Ds.., .:\ ,'r l.I1': t o z a .+ DISMISSING 'THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COI}TS U? 70\6 \v\