High Court · 2025

6 7. Sri Bujula Ramchandra Reddy, S/o.B.Malla Reddy, Age 7.2 yqars.' ..

8. Smt Buiula Sadquna Devi, Wo.B.Ramchandra Reddy. Age' 66 ygar-s,. -Rlo.H.ruo.2t-t 5, Gunj, Badepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Occ. Business, Mahabubnagar District. 9 Sri Buiula Vishunvardhan Reddv, S/o.B Ranchandra Reddy, Age 51 years' Occ. Business. R/o.H.No.21-15, Gunj, Badepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagai District. ...RESPONDENTS t r::fi Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staterj in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ of trilandamus declaring the in:rction of official respondents in not conducting enquiry with regard to file ard proceeding no.A212078t1974, issued by the Tahsildar lvlahabunagar as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violatron of principles of natural justice, and conseque:ntly direct the respondent no.5 to remove t names of the respondents no.6 to I from pahanies and dharani record ir respect of lands iSy.No.161, 162, 163, 164' 167, situated at Badepally Village, -adcherla Mandal Ai Mahabubnagar Disirict, State of Telangana and fu rther. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 . Petition underr fiection 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstrlnces stated in the affidavit filed in sur:port of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to direct the respondent No.5 b remove the names of respondent Nos 6 to !r from pahanies and dharani record in respect of lands in Sy.No.161, 162, 163, 16'4, 167, situated at Badepally Village , Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar Disrrict, State of Telangana. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JOSEPH DAVID Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8318 of 2o25 ORDER: It is stated that the great grandfather of.the petitioners by name Mademoni Venkalna was the owner and possessor of the lald admeasuring Acs.15.01 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.162, 163, 164, 766, 167, 168, l7O and 194/5 of Badepally Shvar Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar and the petitioners have inherited the said property from their grandfather by name M.Madaiah, who acquired the subject property through a partition. It is further stated that when the disputes arose the petitioners were constrained to institute a suit for parlition ald separate possession uide O.S.No.26 of 2024 on the hle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same is pending. It is further stated that one Malla Reddy claiming that he had purchased the subject propert5r and the Tahsildar issued proceedings No.D.Dis.A2l2O78 /7 4 in Form-IV granting permission under Section 5O of the Telanga:na Tenalcy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, therefore, the petitioners have submitted a representation to conduct enquiry with regard to the frle and proceedings No.D.Dis.A2 /2O78 /74. The grievance of the petitioners is thdt even receipt of the representation made 2 CITBR, J Wp 8318 2025 by them, 'lbt, respondent authorities did not cond lct any enqu1ry

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsr"l for the petitioner a nd Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Gov,:mment Pleader for Rr:venue appearing for respondent Nos.l t: 6 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed rf at the admission s;tage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ pe'li1ion, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.7 to 9 is dispensed u.it lt.

3. The Hor.'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra us. Digambarr, observed as under:- "A three judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State lload Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravatr ,1 Ors. [1969 (1) SCR 8O8], reiterated the said prin:iple of laches or undue delay as that which applied in exerci;e of power b_r the High Court under Article 226 of the Constltution. Thereforo, where a High Court in exercise of its power v( sted under ,\rtrcle 226 of th.e Constitution issues a direction, ord,:r or writ for: g:anting retef to a person including a citizen wit tout considerlng his disentitlement for such relief due to his blrrme- worthy coaduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the s,rme, such a cli:ection, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that I (1995) SUPP 1 SCR 3 CVB& J Wp_831E_2025 not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. I l 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 discretionaqr relief under Article 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 relation to inquiring into the allegation alrd grantinB compensation for his lald alleged to have been used for scarcit5r relief road works in the year 1971-72......."

4. In the case of Mrinomg Maitg vs. Chho;nd.a Koleg and. others2, the 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 should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionar5r powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinar5r powers if laxity on the part of the applicart to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts.are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action"

5. In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking relief to conduct enqurry vrith regard to the fiIe in Proc. 'z (2024) 4 scR 506 ( t 4 C\'BR, J wp 8318_2025 D.Dis.No.A2l/ 2O7a / 1974 and the petitioners have approached this Court almost all nearly flve decades, therefcrre, the petitioners ar'o not diligent in pursuing the matter by making application seeking for conducting enquiry and as srrch, the petitioners ,ar t: not entitled arry relief under Article 226 of tl:.e Constitutiorr of India. At this belated stage, if the apolication submitted b1 the petitioners is considered, it would :rot only cause hardrshjp to the persons who are enjopng the subject r' property but vrould a-lso disturb the settled possession cver the sard prope::ty. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners i:; misconceived and the same is liabk to be dismissed.

6. Accor,1ir.g1y, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 'I'here shall be no order aJ to costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 'rlosed. //TRUE COPY'I 'B';'rr'-.,tIiE3lL?4"^H SECTION OFFICER ff:33 [ itn:'s;'|"? R3J:1,3:'1"'r"fEJ3I'::i'" state or reransana' at Hvderabad[t)UT] Two CD CoPie; To, I 2 J TJ BS I I r HE S 14 on( ':, 1t APR zrh \, 4; '1. r,. \-..- s4rTHFn i I ( ( ( ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 t ORDER WP.No.8318 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (, a\ (