The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent in case No. E3/ Sul Tribunal/ 6991 2021lld file No.A/4962/2017 dt05-07-2021 in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 598, 599/A, 500/8, 600/82 and 600/Cl situated at Ananthasagar Village, Hasanparthy lvlandal, Warangal Urban District as well as direct the respondent No. 4 not to alienate the said land to any third parties pending disposal of the writ petition and in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. UMAPATHI SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - The court magg thqrlgllgwingi,gnorn !,,,..::, ,l:,:.!.!.t;t.- .u,.,:ii,.: ....:.,.i ,),t /, /i'/i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.S3OO of 20.2s ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following rclief: "....to rssue a uit, order or dtrection nore pafticularlg one in the noture of wit of Cerliorai to call for the records in the proceedings No'E3/ Spl iaa""oi/ 699/ 2o21-otd fle No.A/4962/2o17 as utell as to set aside the order dated O5.O7.2O21 passed by the 2"d responrlent agoinst lhe lard for an extent of Ac.o2.o3 gts in Sg .1Vos 598, 599/ A, 5o0/ B' 600/ 82 and'6OO/CI situated at Ananthasagar Vitlage' HasanparThV MandoL Wara ngal Urbon Distict...." It is stated that the petitioner. herein, -along with othcrs have 2 hled an appeal under. Section'5(n; of the Telarigana Rights in Land ' I irr rlw Rule 23, seeking and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the respondent No.5 and others, in respect of the lands in Sy No 598, 5gg lA, 5OOB, 600/82 and 6OOIC1 situated at Ananthasagar Village, I{asanparthy Mandal, Warangal Urban District and pending adjudication of the same, the Government has repealed the Act, l97l and enacted new Act called as "the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2O2O" (for short 'AcL, 2O2O'l and all the cases pending before the revenue authorities under lhe Act' 197 | were transferred to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal and the respondent No.2 uide order dated O5'O7 '2021 in Pro.No.tr3/Sp1.Tribunal/699 I 2O2I-Old File No.A/4962 / 2077 tl,as 2 +t.{_l _! dismissed the said appeal stating that the petitioncr has filed a partition suit uide O.S.No.1036 of 2001 on the file of thr: Additional senior civil Judge, warangar, and the same was drsmissed with an obscrvation that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) is not cntitled for any share in thc suit schedule property; defendant No. I js entitled for 2f 3r,r sharc, defendant No.2 is entitled for 1/3ra share in the schedule housc, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal uide A.S.No.63 of 2O05 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and thereaftcr, based on the order dated 31.O1.201S in File No.A/397 /2O13 passed by .he Revenue Divisional Officer, pattadar passbooks werc issued in favour of the unofficial respondents therein and during the lifetime respondent No.2 therein cxecuted a will decd dated 18.O2.2OO3 in lavour of respondent No.1 therein (respondent No. 5 hercin).

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated O5.07.2O21 passed by the respondent No.2_special Tribunal in procecdings bcaring No. E3 / Spl. Tri bunat / 699 / 2O2 1 _Old File No.A/4962/20lZ. Hou.ever, it is to be noted that the petitioner has approached this Court nearly after a lapse of four years from - ..:- / /:/ 3 the datq of the said order, without offering any explanation for the inordinate delay

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra us, Digambarl, observed as under: "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road 'Ilansport Corporotion u. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Seruice, Amrouati & Ors' tlg69 (1) SCR 8081, reilerated the said pinciple of laches or undue delag 'as that rthich applied m exercise of potuer by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its pouer uesled under Articl; 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or uit for granting relief to a person including tt citizen utitLnut considenng his disentittemeat for stch rclieJ due to hit blame- uorthg conduct of undue detag or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or wit becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonabtg in exerase of its sound judiciat discretion, but as that made arbitrailg' Thus, tahen the wit petilioner (respondent here) uas guiltg of laches or undue delay in approaching the Htgh Court, the principle of Laches or undue d.elag aduefted to aboue, disentitled the wit petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary relief under Articte 226 of the Constitution from the Higlt Court, particularlg, tuhen uirluaLty no attempt hcrd been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- worthy conduct of undue delag or laches. The High Court, therefore, was tuholly urong in granting retief in relation to inqtiing into the allegatron and groniirrg compensation for his land alleged to haue been used Jor scarcitg relief road works in the Aeor 1971-72 ....." ln Mrinomg Maitg us. Chhanda Koleg and othere, 6 Hon'b1e Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time and again has hekl that delag defeats equitg Deld'A or loches is one of the Jaitors which should be born in mind bg the High Court uhite exercising discretionory pouers under Anicte 226 of the Constitution of India. ht a given case, the High Court mag refuse to inuoke its extiaordinary polaers if tQ-ritg on the parl oJ the appticdnt to ' (1995) suPP t scR 'lzozay + scn soo I 4 assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift awag and attempts are made subsequentLg to rekindle the tapsed cause of action"

7. In the preserlt case, it is evident that the pe titioner has not been diligent in pursuir-rg his remedies and has approached this Court with unexplained and inordinate delay of more thzrn four years from the date of passing of the impugned order by the Special Tribunal. The petitioner has not offered any cogent cxplanation for such delay. It is a settled lau, that dela1. d61s.g. equity. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for declining discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. In view of the same, and in the absence of any compelling justification for the delay, no interference is warranted with the inipugned irr'der pAssbd: by the Special Tribunal.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No ordcr as to costs. //TRUE COPY// TY REGISTRAR ,-t SD/.K.AMMAJI \b ECTION OFFICER I IJ One CC to SRl. G. UMAPATHI SASTRY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 J BM LS l i os 1 ni Sr.q1 (f Ji 01 FAY 2025 t -Og ,SP eO Hic {' .l c)) HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.8300 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS