High Court · 2025

Judgment

7. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal .Secretary, And Revenue Department, At Secre-tariat Buil'ding, Tankbund, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Ir/edchai-Malkajgiri District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildhar, Kukatpally lvlandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District The Tahsildhar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Qistrict. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an crder, direction or writ, more so in nature of [vlandamus, declaring the action of Respondents No.4 and 6 in rejecting the Application under TM-33 for Passbook Data Correction in File No.B1205712024 B.1205912024, Bt17BBI2O24, Bt2O56,tiLO24 and Bl2O58l2O24 flled by the Petition€'rs respectively and also the arbitrariness of the Respondent's authorities n merging of Petitioner's patta lanc admeasuring Ac.15-00 Guntas in Sub-Etivision Survey No.57/E of Shamshiguda Village into larger extent of land in survey No.57 of Shamshiguda Village ruhich recorded as Poramboke Sarkari as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article l4 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia and alsc, consequently, direct the Responderrts Authorities to exclude the Petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.15-00 Guntas in Sub-Division survey No.57lE of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, tr4r-'dchal-Malkajgiri District, from the larger extent of land in Survey No.57 of Sh;rnshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and upon which, direct the Respondents Authorities to incc,rporate/mutate the name of the Petitioners being the legal heirs of the oRC lolders in File No.A111228175 date<l 10.07.1979 as against the land admeasrring Ac.15-00 Guntas in Survey No 57/E of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally I\/andal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, by rectifying the entries in revenue records inc:luding Dharani Portal, in the interest cf justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Siection I 51 CPC praying that in the circun stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mal' be pleased to reconsider the api{ir:ations of the Petitioners under TM-33 for l]assbook Data Correction in File No.8i205712024, 81205912024, Bl17BBl2024, 51205612024 & 8,1205812024, after giving an opportunity of being heard by subrnitting relevant available revenue re<;ords and any other documenls in support of their case and in the interest of justir:r-., pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Slection 1 51 CPC praying that in the circun stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may'be pleased to exclude the land admr:asuring Ac.15-00 Guntas in Sub-Division Siurvey No.57lE of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-l\/alkajg iri District, which is subject matter of oRC in File No.Al11228175 dated 10.o7.1979 granted in favour of Petitioner's family, from the larger extent of land in Survey No'57 of Shamshiguda Village, pending disposal of the writ petition' iA NO: 3 OF 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 restrain the Respondents No.2,4 & 6 from encumbering or creating any right whatsoever in nature, over the land admeasuring Ac.1 5- 00 Guntas in Sub- Division Survey No.57lE of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, which is subject matter of oRC in File No.A111228175 dated 10.O7.1g7g granted in favour of Petitioner's family, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ROHIT POGULA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BI,,E SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY l,iIRIT PETITION No.6378 of 2025 ORDER It is st;at e d that the petitioners are the legal heirr; of the original inamdars and their names were incorporated in all the revenue records from the year 1979-198O and after conducting enquiry undr:r the provisions of the Telangana Abol..tion of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), Occupancy Rights Certfciate has been granted in File No.A1/ 1228/75, dated, LO.O7.1979. I'- is further stated that since the year, 1()79 the names of the arcestors of the petitioners have been recordecl in the pahanies zurd as such, the petitioners have been making representations for issuance of pattadar pass books atrd title deeds as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97L (for short "the ROR Act, 1971,,) and the Rules made thereunder. The grievance of the petitioners is tL,at even after receiving the said appliciltions/ representations, the respondent authorities did not consi,ler the same.

2. Considert:rl the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this rvrrt petrtion is being disposecl rtI at the admission stage. 1 CVBR, J Wp 6378 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that in view of non-issuance of pattadar passbooks by amending the revenue records, the petitioners are not in a position to enjoy the absolute rights over the subject property and to receive the various incentives salctioned by the Government as investment subsrdies. Learned counsel further contended that once the O.R.C. is issued under the provisions of the Act, it is deemed that the petitioners are entitled to be recognised as pattadars and they are entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and the Telalgana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 2O2O (for short "the Act 9 of 2O2O"l.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has not disputed the issuance of .Occupancy Rights Certi{icate, dated lO.O7 1979 in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader further submits that even though the names of the ancestors of the petitioners have been recorded in pattadar and possessor column, the petitioners have to make an application under Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971 within a period of 30 days. Learned Assistant Government Pleader 3 C\ER, J \\'r 6178 70?5 further subni. ts that if the case of the petitioners for rncorporating their names and updation of the revenue records has not beerL :cnsidered by the Tahsildar as per the pr.ovisions- of the ROR A:1, 197 I , the petitioners are entitled ro make a representation before the Revenue Divisional O1ficer, either for correction of tlLe revenue records or for issuance o1. praft26lz1 pass books

5. As per Sit:ction 4 of the ROR Act, lg|l, il_any person acquiring by slrccession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as, owner, pattadar of a land and any person acquirrng any right as occupant of zr land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acq -risition of such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days frorn lhe date of such acquisition.

6. It is settled principle of law that the parties ar e not entitied to seek crorrection of revenue entries after a long lapse of time and the pa.-r.ies have to approach the authorities within a reasonable time. Even if Statute does not prescribe any sp,ecilic time limit, the lirnitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to all cases, more particularly in cases where reliel :s sought for declaration of propertv rightr;. I l 1 4 CVBR, J wp 6378 20?5 The Hontrle Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue 7 relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Digambarl, observed as under:- "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service' Amravati & Ors. [1969 (1) SCR 808t, reiterated the said principle of laches or und,ue delay as that which apptied in exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise o[ its power vested under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution issues a direction' order or writ for granting relief to a person including a citizen without considering his disentitlement for such relief due to his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the same' such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as fhat not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily' Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondedt here) was guilty of Iaches oi undue delay in approaching the High Court' the principle of laches or undue delay adverted to above' disentitled the writ petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary relief under Art \cle 226 of the Constitution from the High Court, particularly, when virtually no attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or laches- The High Court' therefore' was wholly wrong in granting relief in retation to inquirinEl into 1 (1995) suPP 1 scR 7 5 CVBR, J Wr 6378 2025 the allegarirn and granting compensation for his land allerled to have b,:,:n used for scarcity relief road works in the yr:ar 197 1 72 .. . .." 8 In the :ese of Mrinomy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others2, the tlrn'ble Supreme Court observed as under: 'This Cortrt time and again has held that delay defeats equr y. Dela1, or leches is one of the factors which should be born rn mind by ttLr High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Artir:l: 226 of tL.e Constitution of India. In a given case, the High C,)rrrt may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if la-xity on tl-e part of the applicant to assert his right has allowcd thc cause of action to drift away and attcmpts are made subsc<luently to rekindte the lapsed cause of action,,

9. In the i:rstant case, admittedly the ancestors of the petitioners tr/ere granted Occupancy Rights Certilicate in the year, 1979 and nearly aftir a lapse of five decades, the petitioners clai:rr rights over the property and seek fcr data correction and lonsequential issuance of pattadar pass books. The petitionerri are not diligent in pursuing the rnatter by making appliczrl ion for issuance of pattadar pass books when the ROR Act, 1!)71 is in force. Admittedly, the ROR AcL, 1971 has been repealrrd and replaced with the Act 9 of 2O20. At this belated stage, if the application submitted by the petitioners is ' lzoz+; + sca soe; \ \ { ( ! 6 CVBR, J Wp,-637 8 -2025 -': considered,itwouldnotonlycausehardshiptothepersons, who are enjoying the subject property but- would also disturb thesettledpositionoverthesaidproperty.Sincethe petitioners claiming to be the successors of the original inamdars have made an application seeking for incorporation of their names in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar pass books after a period of five decades' this writ petition filed and framed is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,0O0/ - payable to the Accou nt No'62423627 327 (Llbtaryl of the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association' Hyderabad within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and proof of payment thereof shall be frled before the Registry. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending' if any'

11. shall stand closed' /[RUE COPY/I sD/-v. DEPUTY REGIS HA RAR SECTION O FICER 'o'',. ,n" President' Telangana High court Advocates Association' Hyderabad'

2. One CC to SRI nOUn pOCUr-A' Advocate IOPUCI F:oR REVENUE, High court for the state of reransana at / 3 4 Iys":r::J:f,L Two CD Copies BSR OTE:- Amoun t paid by the Petitioners towards Costs of Rs.50,OO0l (Rupees Fifty ousand only) as direct,:d by the Hon'ble Court, dated 06.03.2025 tc the Account No.62423627327 (LibranT) of the Telangana High Court Advocates, Association Hyderab ad and an amoLnt of Rs.50,000/- and filed Memo of Proof c,f Compliance USR No.36830 of 2025. cated 02tO4t2O2S. I { I 36:STr\r4: ( 1B iiii ?"fl25 !_1 ,.) - '/,\. r. \- ::., - - t.- - -:.. ,.-_ r I t HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 0610312025 ORDER WP.No.6378 ol'2025 DISMISSING TIHE WRIT PETITION, WITH COSTS D{