High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, Direction or order, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.4/Tahsirdar in not considering the Mee-Seva Online application bearing No. TrRos022003363731 , dated.03.1 1 .2020 of petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records and not issuing pattedar pass books in favour of petitioner by not examining the earrier revenue records of pahani nakars in the years of .rg55- 58, 1962-63, 1966-67 and 1973-14 in respect of tand in Sy.No.40.l/A, Ac.2 00 Gts and sy No.401 lA1 , Ac.2.0o Gts, totar extent Ac 4 00 Gts srtuated at Nerapatla Revenue Village, choutuppal Ailandal, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District and declare the same as arbrtrary, illegal, unconstitution a l, violative of Article 14 of constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petitron, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4/Tahsirdar to considered dispose of Mee-seva online application bearing No. TTROS02200336373i, dated03..t 1.2020 and representation dated '15.05.2024 of petrtioner for mutation of petitioners name in revenue records and issuance of pattedar pass book in respect of land in Sy.No.401/A, Ac.2.00 Gts and Sy.No 401/A.t , Ac.2.00 Gts, total extent Ac.4.00 Gts situated at Nelapatla Revenue Village, choutuppal Mandal, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRt. ENAMALLA NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No 5 : - The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7215 of 2or25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is fiiled seeking the foilowing relief: "...-to issue appropriate Writ, Direction or Order more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondent No.4/Tahstldar tn not considering the Meeseua Online application beaing No.TTRO5O22003363731 dated 03.11.2020 of petitioner for mutatton of his nanne in the revenue records and not issuing pattedqr pass boolts in fauour oJ petitioner bg not examining the earlier revenue records of pahant nqkc.ls in the gears of 1955-58, 1962-63, 196G62 qnd 1973-74 in respect of land in Sg.No.401/A (Ac.2.O0 Gts) dnd Sg.No.401/A1 (Ac.2.OO Gts) totd ertent Ac.4.00 Gts situated qt Nelapatla Reuenue Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuuanagiri Dtstict ond declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violatiue of Article 14 of Constitution oJ India and against the pinciples of natural justice..."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is tJre owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.401/ A/1, Ac.2.OO guntas in Sy.No.401/A situated at Nelapatla Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, having purchased the same from respondent No.S and thereafter, he submitted an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. It is further stated that respondent No.4-the Tahsildar, has issued notice in No.B/584/2OO7 dated 23.O3.2OO7 to the petitioner, stating that in the enquiry it is found that the petitioner has violated Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (prohibition gf 2 \ Transfers) Act, 1977. It is the case of the petitioner the Tahsildar has not examined the earlier revenue records before iss;uing notice' wherein originally the nature of the land is recorded e's patta' but later wrong entries are made by the revenue authorities recording thenatureofthelandasLaoniPatta/assignmentlirndandthe same has been continued The grievance of the petit.ioner is that he submitted online application bearing No TTROSO2IZ0O3363731' dated O3.1 l.2O2O seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records and for issuance of e-pattadar passbook in his favour in respect of aforesaid lands, but even after receiving the said application, the respondent authorities are not considering the same. Hence, the writ Petition'

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos l to 4 and perused the record. It is seen from the record that respondent No'4jlahsildar' has 4. issued notice in No.B/584/ 2OO7 d'ated 23 'O3 '2OO7 to the petitioner' stating that in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner has violated Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Telang'ana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Trarsfers) Act, 1977 ' Admitted.'v' the present J writ petition is filed after more than 18 years from the date of issuance of notice by the respondent No.4.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra os. Digam.barl, observed as under: "A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Mahnrashtra Stqte Road Transport Corporation u. Shn Balwant Regular Motor Seruice, Amrauati & Ors. 11969 (1) SCR 8081, reiterqted the so,id principle of laches or undue delag os that which applied in exercise of pouter bA tLLe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, uthere a High Court in exercise of its potter uested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or u)it for granting retief to a person tnctuding q citizen uittnut consideing his disentitlement for such relieJ due to his blqme- worthg conduct of undue delag or lqches in ctaiming the sr"me, such a direction, order or wit becomes unsustainable os that not made judiciouslg and. reosonablg in exercise of its sound judicial discretiory but as that made orbitrailg. XXX Tfuts, uhen the writ petttioner (respondent Lere) utas guilty of tc.ches or undue delog in approaching the High Court, the pinctple of laches or undue delag <tduerted to aboue, disentt ed, the urit petitioner (respondent here) for discretiortary reli{ und.er Arttcle 226 of the Constitution from the High Court, particularlA, when uirtuajlA no attempt hqd been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blam,e- utorthg conduct of undue delag or laches. The High Court, trcrefore, uas uhollg wrong in granttng relief in relotion to inquiing into the allegation and. granting compensation Jor his Land aueged to haue been used. for scarcitA reli{ road uorks in the gear 192 1-72 l I I t ' lroes; sutt r scn .r \ -- -*.1 I - 4

6. It Mrinorng Maitg as. Chhanda Koleg and otherg, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time and again ha,s held that delag deJeats equitg. Delag or laches is one of tLLe foctors which should be born in mind bg the High Court uhile exercising discretionary powers under Ariicle 226 of the Constitution of Indio. In a giuen case, the High Court may refuse to inuoke its extraordiftqry powers if loxitg on the part of the QppLicant to o.ssert his ight has olloued the cause of qction to difi awag and atternpts are made subsequentlg to rekindle the lapsed cause of achon" In the instant case, it is evident that the petilioner is not 7. diligent in pursuing the matter and there is no explanation forthcoming from him for approaching this Court with an inordinate delay of more than 18 years from the date of issuance of the notice by the Tahsiidar. At this belated stage, if the application submitted by the petitioner is entertained, it would disturb the ser-tled position over the subject Properfy.

8. Therefore, the writ petition filed by thc petitioner 1S misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions penCing, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs ty Scl-5oL SD/-AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFIC ER "12"2") I l To,

1. One CC to SRI ENAMALLA NAGARAJU Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana q$r

3. Two CD CoPies DD BS a'-- -j=-.: 1HE -' .i(. --j i,. /. $( 't> () .5 ,..) 0 5 tuE 2l[l t -Al cHl':1- HIGH COURT 1 DATED:1010312025 ORDER WP.No.7215 of 2025 WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS {