The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Apperllant: SRI p.LAKSHMA REDDy Counsel for the Resp,ondent No.1: Ms. SHAZIA PARVEEN, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ IRURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt K.PRAOEEP REDDY, SC Fr)R Zpp The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAl, No. 464 of 2O2s JUDGMENT @er rhe Hon'ble the Acting Chief ,lustice SuJoa paul): Sri p. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the appeliants; Ms. Shazia parveen, learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, lbr respondent No.1 and Sri K. pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishad, for respondent No.2. 2 3 With the consent, finallv heard The appella,, rs / r,vrit petitioners fired w.p.No.30366 of 2016 with the follor,r,ing reliet . "...to issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of wrlt oi mandamus declaring the action of th; Respondents No.2 ancl 3 in laying tf-r. .oua-l" northern side ol- Sy.No.g7 abuttlne the.ol.,.,r, i" SV fo Af bcrween Sy.No.87l8 "and Sv.frr,l.Sg under lhe guise o[ lhc Gramasabha Resolution contrary to the Gramasabha Resolu tion which 1l.": pi""99 for laying rhe road from Bodapatla Shiva Reddl tand ro Kumarelli p.rtup n.ajliJi land and Lhe ucrion ol rht. Respona.nt- f,lo j,o i filming the road in the petitioners land in Sy.No.89 by extending the road taia aoom ty tfre 2nd and 3rd Rrspondcnrs in Sy.No.gZ ,Urrrinn the colony csrablish-d in Sy.ruo.SA *iih;;? acquiring the lar-rd rvithou t paymertt -f ;;; 2 ooml),lnsation and without the consent o1- tlrc '/e nc ors of the Petitioners as arbitrary ille gal :rr d viola[ ve of Articles 14, 2l and 30O A ol tlrc (lons titution of India and consequentll dirccr [lie llespc ndents No.2 to 6 to remove Lhe :oi d iliegz lly formed in the Petitioners land conlra J 1.o th3 Gramasabha Resolution and pasrj-..".

4. The afcresaid relief was deciined by tlre le rrrr Led Single Judge b1' rmpu;l.red order dated 25.O3.2025 bv -rolclms thus "6. Having regard to the rival conten tion s rrr d t.he roaterial on record, this Court findr; thar tl Le pctit.oners are the purchasers of the suoject iitr d zrnd I'rave purchased the land on 01.07.1101(r. 'I1.e alieg,:1 legal notice given by [he vendors o[ tl e petit:c,ners is ciated 09.00.2016 and admirtt:d y the sa me was received by the respondent ol'ficc -s on ttLr: r,ery same day itself by hand. Horver er-, n the legal notice, there is no averment tha t rr y objection or complaint was raised at tlre time rl lavins of the road. It is only stated that ;rrirrr cons,r 1t of the vendors of thc petitioners t\,.rs ni)t obtaired as required under law, even es pcr rl e IIGRE)G Act and MGREG Scheme . Hou'cver. il, s zLlso not in dispute that the road rnas ilricl in ri e ]'ears 20l2-2O13 and the vendors ol r-L c petrtrcners have issued the legal noticc onl' r) the 1r:ar 2016 i.e., just prior to the sale ol- lt c propo.-ty on 01.07.2016. The petitioners uer e verv rnuch aware of the existence of the toad thror-q1h their land and have l:nou'L eg y purchased the same. Therefore, they cannoL rLo.1, sreek removal of the road or compensatir>n for t.l e road 1;oing through the land of the pertrtionr:r;. 1'he r:ompensation, if any, ought to be paid ,rn v io tl^ t owners of the properLy at thc reler.ar ,t point ol time and not to the succr:ssors, , rf inter()rlt. However, srnce the vendorr; oi tL e pretitioners have not raised anv objection a.t the relevrr -rt point of time or within a re ason itb e prerio J of time, but have raised objecrion i. itr r raore lhan a three years, this Court doer; not f in I anv rrerit in lhis writ petition." 3

5. Learned corrnsel lor the appellants submits that as per aforesaid finding of learned single Judge coupled with the stand taken by Gram panchayat mentioned in paragraph No.4 in the impugned order makes it clear that the land in question is belonging to the vendors of the appellants. The only reason for which the writ petition was dismissed is that the road was laid in the year 2Ol2_13 and vendors of the appellants did not raise any objection with quite promptitude. They sent legal notice only on O1.O7.2016. Thus, on the ground of delay, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. By placing hea,,y reliance on the paragraph No.12.12 of the judgment of the Supreme court in vidya Devi v. state of Himachal pradeshr, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay a,d laches cannot be ground for rejection of the writ petrtion of this nature. The deprivation of the appellants from the land in question and compensation is a continuous cause of action. Thus, the matter needs to be re_adjudicated. 6 Learned counsel for the other side supported the rmpugned order but could not cite any judgment wherein any different view is taken than the view taken in Vidya Devi (supra). '1zozo1 z scc ses 4 7 . B g. Nc othr: - point is Pressed. -I Wr: har r: heard learned counsei for the lartit:s lr- length A plain reading of paragraph No.6 of the imrlugr-red order of the learrred l)ingle Judge shows that the oF'eratire reason for rejecting the u rit petition was that the road u'rrs 1a.id r. the 1'ear 2012-13 and r,:ndors of the appellants kept quiet titt l)) 07.2O16 r.r,hen ther'. for the first time, sent a legal notice . Fo r t 1l s reason, learned Singlt: Judge opined that the wri: petiticn is not entertainable eld has no merits.

10. ln Viclya Devi (strpra), 1n paragraph N o. 1 12. 1 2, the Supremc C)ourt opined as under:

12.12. The contention advanced b1' thc St tte of c t'lay and laches of the appellant it'r tn:rv ng thc (lourt is also liable to be rejected. De 1:r' a nd l:rcl.r's cannot be raised in a case of a :onlittu t'tg cause of action, or if the circumstar,ces s,nc ck the judicial conscience of th: Cot rt Con clonation of delay is a matter cf ju lic ia1 disc retion, which must be exercised . udi,:iru;ly and -easonably in the facts and circunrstanccs ol a cirse. It will depend upon the brcirc h ol fun,lamentai rights, and the remed'r clarm:cl, :rnd when and how the delay arose. 'I'hert-' is t'to penc d of limitation prescribed for tht' coults [o c'xelt:ise their constitutional jurisdict.ion r rt do su bs tantial justice. 11 Irr the light of this judgment, the delerr iLnd laches carlno[ corne in the \ ray of the appellants becausr: :L matter of a- I I To, 1 2 J 4 5 5 this nature is pregnant with a continuous cause of action In other words, a person f citizen, w,hose land has been utilized without following the due process, is at least entitled to get compensation. He/she deserves a hearins on ments and his/her claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

12. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 is set aside. W.P.No.3O366 of 2016 is restored to its original number with the request to the learned Singie Judge to rehear the parties and decide the matter afresh on merits.

13. With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall aiso stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.M.MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I evelopment Department, The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Telangana Secretariat,- Hyderabad, Staie of Telang The Mandal Parishad Development Officeri programme Officer, NREGS, choutuppq]. (Village and Manbar), yadadri-BhuVinagiri Districi '1erst,u[ireJ Nalgonda District). The Additional Programme Officer, NREGS, Choutuppal (Viilaoe and Manctal), Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District (Erstwhile Nalgonda bistrict;. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Section. Officer, Writ Non-service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

6. One.CC to SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR Zpp [OPUC] ,.-G'*\'t-' ,-/ \ B Two CCs to GF' FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL D'EV' Fliglr Court for the Siaie of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPier; o BSR LS llP L-, HIGH COURT DATED:29104,t2025 \ JUDGMENT WA.No.464 o12025 \ di::r 14i ,i' [2 llt25 ( o I I i+ i-' .;r, 1-r, -'\-liy' --.: -: - j-- -- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS @q-,w