A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service' Amravati Ors

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 Respondents 2 to 4 herein to consider the representation dated 17 -O1-2025 submitted by the petitioners pending disposat of the above W.p. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. K. KRISHNA MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the followin!: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC EC. V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1O952 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is fi1ed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying atfidavit the petitioners herein prays that this Honble Court may be pleased Lo issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ o[ Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 herein in not delivenng the revert back land Ac 2 17 gts = Ac.2-43 cents situated in Sy.No 266 of Ravalkole Village, Medchal-Malakajgiri District as per the proceedings in C-C.No- Ml2023/75 dated 16-06 1977, as per detivery certificate of possession/ panchanama dated O9'o3 1992 delivered Ac.18-45 cents = Ac.18-18 gts. out of Ac.2O 88 cents = Ac20-35 gts as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 herein to deliver thc revert back land Ac.2-17 gts = Ac.2-43 cents situated in Sy.No.266 of Ravalkole Village, Medchal- Matakajgiri District and to pess such other just and approPriate orders in the matter."

2.Itisstatedthatpetitionersare|helegatheirsofthedeclarants inc.c.No.M/2O23lTsbeforetheLandReformsTribunal,Hyderabad(trast) and after due enquiry, the Additional Rcvenue Divisional officer, Land Reforms uide letter dated 18.02.1992 directed the 4th respondent to revert back the lands admeasuring Acs. 101.56 cents in Survey Nos 248, 249,25O, 251, 266, 267 and 622, situated at Ravalkole village. It is further stated that the 4e respondent directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector uide Merno Rc.B/3552/91 to deliver the revert back lands to the declarants and the Mandal Revenue Inspector delivered the land in the prescnce of the witness as per the certificate of delivery possession to the owner under Form No.lI dated 09.03.1992 to Sri Bawarilal Jain, who is the GPA of the declarants. It is lurther stated that Iand in Survey No.266 of Ravalkole is one among the 2 CVBR, J W.P.No. 109.52 of 202s 'revert back land, which has total extent of Acs. 20.35 grtntas, but while delivering the same, the Mandal Revenue Inspector derivered an extent or- Acs' 18'45 ccnts as per the panchanama/possession certificatc dated 09 03'1992 and the declarants are yet to be crelivered barance land of ecs 2 +s cents in Survey No.266 0f Ravarkole Virage from the Government custody lt is further stated that the pe tioners made an application under Right to Information Act on og'o1 2024 seeking for proceedings in t-ile No'ts/3525/g1 0f the 4ft respondent and the 4th respondent replied through letter datecl 19 -o2.2o24 urde Lr.No.RTr/10/2024/2s that the said record is not available. The grievance of the petitioners is that they made an application dated 17'01 '2029 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting to conduct survey, demarcation of the remaining portion ol_ the land to an exlent ol. Acs'2'L7 guntas in Survey No 266 0f Ravalkore village, but till date the same was not considered b1, the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Considereci the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents has submitted that decraration filed under the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (ceiling on Agriculturar Holdings Act' 1973 ( for short "the Act") in c.c.No.M/ 2oz3/Ts has attained finality and the surplus lands vested in the state under the provisions of the Act '7 3 CVBR, J W-P.No. 10952 of 2025 and the resPondent No.4 vide Proceedings No'B/3552/ 1991 dated excess land for re-delivery ol the same to the 18.O2.1.992 determined declarants. It is further stated that the petitioner has made an application to identify the excess land to be delivered after 30 years of attaining frnality of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act and in view of third party's interest being created over the subject 1ands, at this length time' the petitioner is not entitled to maintain any petition under the provisions of the Act or seek re- delivery of the possession of excess land in a writ jurisdiction The claim made by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation and the petitioner is notentitledforanyreliefsoughtinthewritpetitionandultimately'prayed lor dismissal of the writ Petition

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court' while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State oJ Maharashtta us' Digam.barl, 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 8081, reiterated the said principle of laches or undue dclay 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 of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction' order or $'rit for granting lelief to a person including a citizen without considering his disentitlement for such relief due to his blame-worthy conduct of undue delay orlachesinClaimingthesame'suchadirection'orderorwritbecomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its but as that made arbitrarilY sound judicial discretion, i (1996) SUPP 1 SCR 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.10952 of 2025 Thus, $,hen the \,.rit petitioner (respondent here) rvas guilty oI 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 the Constitution from the High Court, particularly, uhen virtually no attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blame, worthy conduct of undue detay or laches. The High Court, therefore, rvas wholly wrong in granting relief in relation to inquiring into the allegation and granting compensation for his land alleged to have been used ior scarcity relief road works in the year 1971,72......."

6. In the case of Mrinomg Maitg vs. Chhanda Koteg and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time and again has held that detay defeats equitv. Delay or laches is one of thc factors which should be born in mind by the High Court u,hilc exercising dlscretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India_ ln a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinaqr powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has altowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action"

7. In the instan[ case, it is evident that the petitioners are nol diligent in pursuing the matter for re-delivery of the alleged excess lands and it is stated that they made an application on 17 .OI^.2O2S seeking implementation of the proceedings in Rc.No.B/355211991 dated 18.02.1992 for conducting survey for alleged excess land to revert back to the declarants i.e, land admeasuring Acs. 2.77 guntas in Survey No.266 of Ravalkole Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District relying upon the possession certificate/ panchanama dated 09.03.1992. Th-e declaration is filed in the year 1975 and the same has attained hnality. Thereafter, it seems the declarants represented av.t(. ir power of attorney made an application to revert back 2 12024) 4 SCR 506 - 5 CVBR' J W.P.No.1O952 of 2C25 the Proceedings 1n this Court, onc€ proceedings emanated This writ Petition is the excess lands. Acing on the said application' Rc.No.B/3552/ 199i dated la O2'lgg2 were issued' filed nearly after 30 years of attaining flnality of the from the land reforms laws' In the oPinion of proceedings emanated from the Ceiling Act' attained finality' cannot be reoPened for re-d petition is not a remedY' In stage, would not onlY cause of subject ProPerty but also the property. Therefore' the writ petltlon hled bY the Petrttoners misconceived and the same is'Iiable to be dismissed' the same elivery of the alleged excess land and the writ terferencd with the said orders at this belated hardship to the persons who are in possession amounts to disturbing the settled position over IS Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed' There shall be no 8 ordcr as to costs' As a seque l,themiscellaneouspetitionspending,ifan5l,shallstand closed \ To, 1 2 3 "'til$,H!fE*'"T$'[lR //TRUE COPY// secTlK#rrcEn ?*: 33i?"'3i [JSl'#t yPffi 3SIi?x"i[?'=Y:i or re|angana at Hvderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies BM GJP I -^--- -'-".".."&*..*9.: - -=+i---. r HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 ORDER WP.No.10952 of 2O2S i ---,-'a:- 16- o,, 0 3 sEP 206 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6