Ailla Bheemaiah v. The State of Telangana

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 officiais to consider the application and issue patta-passbook. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SOURABH AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: - The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1289O of 2025 ORDER: It is stated that the petitioner,s father by name Ailla Bakkaiah is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.6.OO guntas in Sy.No. 14g and Acs.4.OO guntas in Sy.No. 129, situated at Mandamarri Village, Mancherial District. It is further stated that, when the name of the petitioner,s father rvas deleted from pahanies and names of respondent Nos.s to 9 were incorporated, the petitioner filed an appe.el before the Special Tribunal, Mancherial. By an order, dated Og.O2.2O2 1 in ST No.373/2021/c/ 5026/2otg, the Special Tribunal dismissed the appeal stating that the name of the petitioner,s father was erroneously entered in the pahanies and later it is rectilred with the original pattadar in the years 1992_93 and 7997-9a and subsequently, successions were also granted in favour of respondent Nos.S to 9 and they have received compensation under the Singareni OC projects. The petitioner had not submitted any other documentary evidence except pahani nakals and he challenged the patta of respondent Nos..5 to 9 after 25 years. euestioning the orders of the Special Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. ./ ,/ l 2 CVBR, J Wp- 12890 2025

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

3. It is settled principle of law that the parties are not entitled to seek correctjon of rcvenue entries after a long lapse of tin-re and the partles l-rave to approach the authorities within a reasonable period, though the statlrte has not prescribed any time limit.

4. The Hon'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 Road Transport Corporation r,. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (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 Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High ' (1995) supp 1 scR 3 CVBR, J wp- 12890 2025 Court in exercise of its power vested under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting relief ro a person including a citizen wilhoui considering his disentitlement for such relief due to his blame-wor(hy conduct of undue delay or laches in clarming 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. XXX 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 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 ald granting compensation for his land alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road works in the year l97l 22......." ,l l

5. In the case of MrinomA Maitg as. Chhanda Koleg and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: , I "This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors whtch should '? lzoz+y < scn soo I , 4 (\- CVBR, J Wp 12890_2025 be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinar5z powers if laxity on the part of the applicant 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"

6. In the instant case, the petitioner filed an appeal after a long lapse of 25 years and the appeal filed by thc petitioner was decided on 08.O2.2021 and the present writ petition is filed after a lapse of three years from the date of the impugned order. The petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the matter and therefore, the writ petition filed is misconccived and the same is 1iab1e to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. 7 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall Lre no order as to costs

8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT R-EGISTRAR )1, SECTIdiT OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI SOURABH AGARWAL Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana' touTl

3. Two CD CoPies BGS. HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412025 ORDER WP.No.12890 of 202 .-:- .JI- ',-.^i .$ ,' > * ,1 _.t 1\ i|.:' 'll ;- 4t-- !\l \.. r)- s.c \ i.,. !* I i I I j I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (