1. Chinthalapati Vaishnavi Durga v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petitionund'lrsi3ction'l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircums;tan(:esstatedin the affidavit filed n su r:ort of the petition, the High court may be: pleased to suspend the operati lrl lf the orders in Case No l/28'19/20'16 datecl 21 .O9 2019 passed by respontler- ll'1.3 in respect of the petitioners lands adrneal;uring Ac 0- 30 Gts. in Sy. No.:19/l\/ I A pertaining to petitioner No 1 and the land 'rdmeasuring Ac.1-28 gts in Sy. fJo e O/A/1 pertaining to petitioner No2 situatecl 'rt ltikalapalli Village, Bachannace't IVzrndal. Jangaon District to avoid miscarriage r'f justice and multiPlicity of litigatic'n t; Counsel for the Petiti'rner :SRl' ASHOK KUMAR N Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the f'cllowing: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13324 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stoted-tn the occontparulinq offidautt, it is praged tllet this Hon'bte court ma!.t be pleased ti i'{".'Z 'iuir, ord.er or d.trections more particularlq ofte in th,e 17!y3 of Wnt of C"iioron' ,ottioq foi the records relattnq to the orders in case No.I/2Stsizola a"i;"ii.6i.iorg possed. bs the respondent No.Jasi,eqot,arbitraruanduiotatiueiiirtici)"-ii.,g(l)(d).2t and 300_4 ol the constitution of rndta and in ^conrrauen'tion-"iiin" r.uroono Riqhrs in Land and Pafiqdar pcssbook-s Act, .1g!l ""a ,r"r.q""ilu'set qside the orders of the respondent No.3 ir respect of the petttioneri', io,iii oa^"orzrnnq Ac. 0_3O Gts. in Sa. No.39/A/ 1/A pettainlnq to p.txioi", io. if,li tn" una admeasuins Ac.t 28 qts in Su. No. 4O/A/ 1 p_ertaininq to pet tioi., io".Z situoted at ltikalapaUi Vittaoe, Btrchannapet Mandal, Janqeon btstnct, oni p'cll"'iu"n oth,er and frtrther order or orders that the Hon'bte coutl maa deem in "[iii.iZ, 2. i" the interest of justice." It is stated that the lst petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 0.30 guntas in Survey No.39/A/1/A and 2"d petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.28 guntas in Survey No.aOlAll, both the lands situated at Itikalapalli village' Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District. It is further stated that the ist petitioner purchased the said land from the 2nd petitioner under a registered Sale Dced bearing Document No.2535 of 2022 d.ated, 2g.7 r.2()22 and his name was also recorded in the revenue records. It is further stated that the 1"r petitioner received a notice bearing No.B/350/2025 dated 09 04'2025 from the 4rh respondent to attend his o1'ce regarding the court cases pertaining to Survey Nos.39/ t/A3,39lA/tB,39/A/llA, 39/A/ I/Al, 39 / A/ I / A2, 39/A and 39/B to conduct an enquiry for implementing the order dated 20.11.2C24 passed by this Court in W.p.No.222l2 of 2023, wherein this court has directed thc 4rh respondent to implement the order dated 21.O9.2O19 passed by the 3.d respondent in appeal in Case I 2 CVBR, J tA'. P. It :t. 1 3 324 of 2025 No.Il2819 l20 t( il:,1 by one Pabbathi Sidda Reddy under Scction 5(5) of the Telangana Rignts i;r Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1.,)71 (for short, 'the ROR Act, 197 ') f lLe grievance of the petitioners is that rhe "r pelitioner is not a party eithr:r i r W.P.No.22212 of 2023 or in Casr: No.Il2:179 l20 16, but the 2"d petiticrr'r '.ras added as respondent in Case No.f l2Bl9 12016 and therefore, the I)e lit oners pray to set aside the or,ler clat,:d 21.09.2019 passed by the f,,4 ;'r::;pondent in appeal in Case No.I/281!lr2O 6. Hence, the present writ pt:ti tion.

3. Cons 11:red the submissions of the learnerrl cr unsel for the petitioners anC Si: L.Ravinder, learncd Assistant G,)verrmr nt Plcader for Revenue appear ing for the respondents and with their con scnt, this writ petition is beirLg cislrosed of at the admission stage. 4 . Le alr r:,i Assistant Government Plead< r or Revenue has submitted tha t a:; per Section 4 of the ROR Act, 197 1 , t h .: person, who acquires right; s:r:11 rntimate in writing with regard to accluisition of such right to the Tahs, rlar rvithin thirty days from the date o'su,:h acquisition. It is further su lrn tted by the learned Assistant Go.,,crnm,rr t Pleader that even if the TaL s:klar has not mutated his name as per the ti:.rr,,: specified, the petitioner is hrring right to approach the revisional authoritv under Section 9 of the ROR ,A.c, , l,)7 1.

5. Frorn tte perusal of the record, it is seen th:Lt a6rgrieved by the order dated 21 .Ott.iolg passed by the 3.a respondent :n appeal in Case CVBR, J W.P.No.13324 of 2O25 No.Il2819 l2O 16 hled by one Pabbathi Sidda Reddy under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 197 | , the petitioners have fi1ed the present writ petition, which is nearly after a period of six years, without making the persons whose rights have been declared under the impugned orders as party respondents to this wrlt petition.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, whiie dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State oJ Maharashtra as. Digambarl, observed as under:- "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State RooLd. Transport Corporation u. Shn Balutant Regular Motor Seruice, Amrauctti & Ors. 11969 (1) SCR 8081, retterated the said pinciple of laches or undue delag as that ulhich apptied. in exercise of potuer bg the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise oJ is pouer uested und.er Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or wit for granting relief to a person including o citizen without consideing his dtsentitlement for such relief due to his bLame uorthg conduct of undue delag or laches in claiming th.e same, such a direction, order or uit becomes unsustainable as that not mad.e judiciously and_ reasonably in exercise oJ its sound ludicial discret{on, but as that made arbitrailg. XXX Thus, uhen the utrit petitioner (respondent here) uas gutLtg of laches or undue delag in approaching the High Cour7, the pincipte of laches or undue detag qduerted to ctboue, disentitled the wrtt petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary relief under Afticle 226 of the Constitution from the High Courl, partia arlg, uthen uirtuallg no attempt had been made bg th,e writ petitioner to explain his blame- utorthy conduct of undue delay or lqches. The High Couri, therefore, was uholly wrong in granting relieJ in relation to inquiing into the allegation and granting compensation for his tand alleged to hque been used for scarcitg relief rodd udrks in the year 1971-72......." I \ 1(1995) SUPP 1 SCR i a r-a:_--t:.: 4 CVBR, J,- \,r. t' I:o. 1 3324 of 202 5

7. lr tr : :tsc of Mrinomg Maitg us. Chhanda Kote.y and others2, the Hon'b1e Srrprcnt: Court observed as under "This Coun ti,nc t'td again has held that delag defeats eqr" itLt. Delc , or [ctches is one of the Jxlors tuhich should be born in mind. bg the High Cot:.rt trh.le exercising discretiorla'!/ pctt:rs ttnder Ar1rcle 226 of the Constitutiot L oJ h(lla Il a giuen case, the Hiqtr '-'c t.rt mag refuse to inuoke ib ertraordinqf! oorL,( rs if laxil7 on the pqrt of tlrc apl,)ti(..(ttrt to assert his ight hqs alLotoed the c-luse of action to d.ifi awag and tltt'..1.,1.t3 are made subseqttently to rekindte the Lctpsed un;e of action"

8. There Iorc, the present writ petition filcrl bv tl-rt petitioners is misconceived ar c liirble to dismissed on the ground of d<-: ar rLnd laches and also on the g'o t: (l that the petitioners have not m. clc 11. lersons whose rights have t,er:r <lecided under the impugned or,:1er dat :cL 21.O9.2019 passed by the 3 a r--spondent in Case No.Il28t9 l2O1(r as pzrr.y respondents to this u.rit per it ic rl

9. A< cor<l r)gly, this Writ Petition is dismiss,:d. 'llrr,re shall be no order as to cos ts . Miscellant orr; applications pending, if any, shail sti:.nd c loscd. sc+ tcb @'au)a To, //TRUE COPY// SD/J\. JAYASREE REGISTRAR ON OFFICER \Ssrarur I ' n srctt Ir 1 The State tf Te:langana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Rev:nue: Department Secretaria . llvlerabad.

2. The District (loll3ctor, Jangaon District, T G. 3. The Revenue t) visional Officer, Jangaon District, T.G 4. The Tahsilduir Eiachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District, T.G 5 One CC tc [it?l CSHOK KUMAR N Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs 1o (iE :OR REVENUE ,High Court for the State rf T€:langana louTl

7. Two CD CoPie's; M DD HIGH GOURT DATED:29104|;?,025 ORDER WP.No.13il24'ot 2025 k a) ?. r. ES; .::.-,6 \n( o .\ { 26 rl.lfl mft a)f I i-tJ '-' DISMISSING.THEWRITPETITIoNWITHoU"TcoSTS i\$ i I I I I I i I I I I t I l I I I