M. Lalaiah 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not considering the petitioner representation d1.04.01.2025 for implementation of order of 3'd respondent vide C189112006, dt.1 2.06.2008 mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records with regard to agricultural land Sy.No.71, admeasuring Ac.7.35 gts situated at Madugula Chettempally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct ths respondent No.1 to 4 to implement the order of 3'd respondent passed vide CiB91l2006, d1.12.06.2008 and issue pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of petitioners with regard to agricultural land Sy.No.71, admeasuring Ac.7.35 gts situated at .Madugula Chettempally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 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 direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to implement the order of 3rd respondent vide C189112006, dt.12.06.2008 and issue pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of petitioners with regard to agricultural land Sy.No.71, admeasuring Ac.7.35 gts situated at Madugula Chettempally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POTLOLLA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER ' 'Y HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.8419 of 2o25 It is stated that the father of the petitioner by name M.Paramaiah was the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.7.35 guntas in Sy.No.71, situated at Madugula Chettempally Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District. It is iurther stated that after the death of his father, the petitioner had succeeded to the said property but he has been residing at Serilingampally due to his employment. It is further stated that taking advantage of the petitioner's absence in the village, some illegal entries were entered for the subject land. It is further stated that having come to know about the entries being made illegally in the revenue records, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97L (for short "the ROR Act, 1971") before respondent No.3. By an order, dated 12.06.2O08 in File No.C/ 891 /06, respondent No.3 set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4 in respect of the subject land and directed respondent No.4 to carry out necessary corrections. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the orders passed by the appellate authority-respondent No.3, respondent \-r No.4 has not implemented the said order by correcting the I I ) CVBR. J Wp 8419-2025 entries in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was not issued in his favour.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder, learned AssiStant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and I with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents is dispensed with.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O (for short "the Act 9 of 2O2O"l and there is no such power now to impiement the orders being passed under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971. Besides that the petitioner, alter 17 years of the order, is secking implementation of the said orcler for correction of entries in the revenue records.

4. It is settled principle of law that the parties are not entitled to seek correction of revenue entries after a lor-rg lapse of timc and the parties have to approach the authorities within a CVBR, J \Np.8419_2O25 reasonable period, though the statute has not prescribed any time limit-

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue deiay and laches, in the case of State oJ Maharqshtra as. Digarrtbarr, observed as under:- "A three-Judge Bench of 'this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. [969 (1) SCR 808], reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delay as that which applied in exercise of power by the High Court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of lhe 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 that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondent here) was guilty of laches or 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 Article 226 of t}re 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 relation to inquiring into the allegation and ' 1re9s; swt, r scn + CVBR, J Wp_8419_2025 €fanting compensation for his land alleged to have been used for scarcitl relief road rvorks in the year 1.971-72.......'

6. In the case of Mrinomg Maitg us. Chhand.a Koleg and others2, thc Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which shor.rld be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of t}:.e Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cau se of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action"

7. In the instant case, the appeal filed by the petitioner was decided on 72 .06.2OO8 and now the petitioner seeks implementation of the said order. The petitioner has not taken any steps for implementation of the said order either under the program called 'land records updation program' introduced by the Government or during the operation of the ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, i[ the petitioner is having any absolute right over the subject property and since third parties have been in possession of the subject lands, he is not entitled for issuance of a writ of mandarnus at this belated stage in view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above. Hence, the writ petition filed is t (zoz+) + sctt soo I 5 CVI]R, J wp_S419_20Js Inisconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. However, it is needless to observe that if the petitioner is having any documents in support of his claim as pattadar of the subject property, he is at liber[z to take appropriate steps in accordance with law by approaching the competent civil Court.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, the miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. -A.V.S.PRASAD / TY REGISTRAR ./ SD/ P \ /TTRUE COPY// S GTION OFFICER I ji;3i?""'*'Rt,aif,"4Hu3Btli-15'?R""btt%1i""'L?Ey':j 33 '",1?,ffi IOUTI two CD CoPies BN/BSK 3 q i I I HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 ORDER WP.No.8419 ot 2025 1 S'iA.' E QA q o o 0 B rPn 2025 ': rl :l DESt,bar r.f DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS