1. Bhaowan Prasad. S/o.Late Shri. ttlanohar Prasad Agriculture Fyo apg'S-tlq v. 1. Addl. Revenue Divisional officer

8 Nrrkalaoudem chinna Mallaiah, s/o.Late Shri Mallaiah Agriculture resident of - keei"l"i Daira Village, Kepsara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' 9. Ram REddy, (died) per LRs-RR13 to 1 5' 1O l\ilallikariuna Reddv. sio.shri Yadi Reddy Agriculture resident of Keesara - oiira Village, Keesara Mandal' Ranga Reddy District'

11. Narasimha Reddy, s/o.Late shri Kandadi l\ilallaiah Agriculture resident of keeiiri Daira Villdge, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'

12. Ramidi Chandraiah, (Died) per LRs - RRl6 to 21 ' '13. K.Malla Redrly, S/o.late Ram Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ; Agriculture (Son), Reddv, s/o.late Ram Reddy, ased 40 years, occ; Agricutture E:frfl"u,,

15. K.Safti Reddy, S/o.late Ram Reddy, aged 34 years, Occ; Agriculture (Son), Respondents 13 to .15 Mandal, Rangareddy District. residents of Keesara Daira Village, Keesara

16. Smt.Ramidi fvlunemma , Wo.late Chandraiah, aged 65 years. Occ: House wife,

17. Ramidi Bal Reddv. Agriculture (Son),

18. Ramidi Deva Reddv. Agriculture (Son), S/o.late Chandraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: S/o.late Chandraiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ;

19. Ramidi Rami Reddv. Agriculture 1S,1n), Respondents 16 to 21. are residents of Keesara Daira Virage, Keesara I\4andal, Ra ngareddy District. S/o.late Chandraiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ; :ft '-"f ,i:;:lJ8:&li,iit,1i,.u,s,|,F1::iil1,T,.oB?"".'01""?,?xilo*n ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly the one in the nature of wril of certiorari cafling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order dated 10.01.2006 under fire No. F2r5201r2oo2 and ro quash the same and to consequenry set aside the occupancy certificates issued in favour of the 3rd to 12th Respondents, pertaining to an extent of Ac. 45-24 guntas, in Survey Nr:s. 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 257,262, 263 and 264 of Keesara Daira Virrage, Keesara Mandar of Ranga Reddy District and to pass such other further order or orders i I i I i l.A. NO: 1OF 2008(wPMP. NO: 12716 O F 2008) Petition under section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass an interim order suspending the operation of the occupancy certificates said to have been issued in favour of the 3rd to 12th Respondents, pertaining to their lands to the extent ol Ac.45-24 guntas, in Survey Nos 10, 11, 15, 16' 17' 257' 262, 263 and 264 of Keesara Daira Village, Keesara Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, during the pendency of this writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : ASST' GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.5to8,10: SRI CH'OMERNATHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.4&11 : SRI S'SRINIVASA SHARMA Counsel forthe Respondent No.9,12TO19 : The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.9634 of 2OO8 ORDER This u'rit petition has been fired in the nature of writ of certiorari ca[ling for the records of respondent No.2 pertaining to his order drrted 10.01.20O6 under File No.F2/52O1, l2OO2 and, quash the same and to consequently set aside the Occupancy Certificates issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to l2 pertaining to an extent of Ac.4S-24 gts., in Sy.Nos. 10, 11, 15, i6, lZ,2ST, 262, 263 and 264 of Keeseira Daira Village, Keesara Mar_rdal, Ranga Reddl District (for short ,subject land, hereinafter). Brief facts of the case:

2. Petit:oner Nos.1 and 2 arre brothers and claims that their lather Srt Manohar prasad was original owner of the subject propert-lr. Pct tioners' father died in the year rg47 reaving behind petitioners' rnother Smt.Tara Bai who was the eldest member of their family and she came into possession and enjoyment of the said land al,l the Revenue Records rvere also mutated in her name shor.r,ing her as the pattadar. petitioners, mother also died on 26'1r'1992. Thereafter petitioners filed an appiication before the Mandal Ilevenue Officer, I(eesara Maldal for grant of an 2 w.P, o,9634 0f200s order of succession and the then M R'O', Keesara Mandal' uide hle No.B/366/96, dated 25'03'1996, issued proceedings declaring the petitioners as the successors for the estate of the Late Smt.Tara Bai and further directed the concerned Revenue Authority to incorporate their names in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.26-O9 guntas only covered in Sy'Nos'39' 156' 257,l58,760,262and264ofKeesaraDairaVillageanddidnot order for the mutation of the remaining extent of land held by the petitioners without assigning any reasons' It is further submitted that one Patwari Shri Suresh Prasad Tiwari of Keesara Daira Village made some manipulations in the revenue records of the said viliage and further managed issuance of Ou'nership Certificates, under Section 3B-E of Andhra Pradesh [Telangana Area] Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act' 195O' in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to i2' It is further submitted that petitioners ca-rne to know about such issuartce of Ownership Certificates in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 12, only during the first week of March 2002. a.) It is submitted that during the month of July' 1975 to 12 Ownership Certificates were issued to respondent Nos'3 though Petitioner s'mother name is appearing in ali the revenu'e I I i I I I i I 1 J lrvsK, J W,P. No.9634 oa2ooa proceedings that preceded records as pattadar and possessor. It is their further case that the M.R.O., Keesara Mandal r,vithout issuing any notice to the petitioners' ,other hacl issued ownership certificate and such certificates u,ere issued without any enquiry and without any proceedings. Subsequently, petitioners made application before respondent No.1 on OB.O3.2OO2 requesting to issue certified copies ol the said certificates and the such certifir:ates. On OS.OZ .2002 , respondent No.1 issued certilied copir:s of the said or,,,nership certificates which were said to have been issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 12. The petitioners Lh ereafter rrled an zLppeal F2 / 5201 r 2002 before the Joint Collector - II, Ralga Reddy District cha-llenging issuance of the said ovvnr:rship certificates in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 12. Responde nt No.2 has issued impugned proceedings dated 10.01.2006 drsmissing the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that the said appeal was barred by limitation. It is further subm itted that respondent No.2 did not hear the contentions o I the petitioners before issuing such ownership certificates. e uestioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4 rsvsl<. J w,P. No.9634 of2ooa COUNTER AFFIDAVITS:

4. A counter a-fhd'avit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 stating that the petitioners have filed the above case without any right whatsoever in respect of the schedule lands and have suppressed the material facts. It is submitted that the grandfather of respondent No.3 namely pasha Saheb and his brother Chote Saheb are the protected tenants for an extent of Ac.4 33 Gts., in S.No.262 ald an extent of Ac' 16- 17 Gts., in S.No.263 of Keesara Daira village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that grandfather of respondent No.3 and his brother were granted certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of A.P' (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 wav back in the year 1975 uide proceedings No.B/305/LRE/75, dated 17'7'1975 and are in possession of the property since then' Subsequently, the property was divided between his grandfather and his brother equally with Ac.2-17 Gts in Sy.No.262 and Ac'8-08 Gts , in Sy.No.263 of Keesara Daira village, Keesara Mandal, R R' District. It is further submitted that the land belonging to his grandfather in Sy.No.263 was sold to various persons both by his grandfath er and father. However, the land in S'No'262 r"t'as in possession of respondent No.3 and his brother' It is further / ,' 5 N\/Sk, J w,P. No 9634 0f 2ooa submitted tlLat respondent No.3 along with his brother were also owners and possessors of well in Sy.No. 11 of Keesara Daira Village rnhic. is water source for cultivation. The said well was inherited fi-om their ancestors. It is further submitted that respondent \o.3 along lvith his brother iare having exclusive right over an extent of Ac.0 06 gts., in Sy.No.10 of Keesara Daira Village. Thereafter, their granclfather r,r.as granted with 3B_E certificate ir.r the year 7925 ard that filing of appeal after 2Z years is bar-red by limitation ar_rd the appeal was rightly dismissed bv respondent No.2.

5. It is submitted that the writ petitioners a-re totally strangers to r.he subiect lands and they are claiming that they are the sons of Tara Bai. But in fact, the satcl Tara Bai died issueiess ar.rd during her life time, she sold and relinquished her right over all the lands. Hence, the petitioners have no right on the property' It is further submitted that the writ petitioners have earlier c:hallenged issuance of ownership certificates by Itling appeal bt:fore the Joint colrector, Ranga Reddy District vide F.No.F2/2OO)/:2OOO which was dismissed by an order dated 22.01.2OO1 and this material fact 1y4s suppressed in the appeal stating that r-. o notice was issued by the authorities before 1 6 W.P. No 9634 o( 2OOa granting 38-tr certificate and the petitioners failed to explain the inordinate delay of about 25 Years in preferring the appeai The said order has attained finality, and the petitioners have now filed the appeal No.F2/52O1/2O02 (impugned proceedings) after 27 years contending that no notice was issued to Smt'Tara Bai while granting 38-E certificate to the respondents which is barred by limitation. By making the aforesaid submissions' respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the writ petition'

6. A counter a-ffidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.S, 6, 7, 8 and 1O being deposed by respondent No.10 wherein it is submitted that he is the pattedar and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac'2-05 guntas in Survey No.264 situated at Keesara Daira (Village), Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from theRespondentNos.S,6&Bandothersuideregistetedsaledeed Doc.No.7340of2oo7d.ated07.06.2oo7.ltissubmittedthathis vendorswereissuedownershipcertificateunderSection3S_Eof Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) vide proceedings No.B/305/LRD|75 daled 17 .O7 .1975 and respondent No' 10 has subsequently issued patta pass book on the strength of the the Maadal Revenue Officer uide proceedings of 1 AVSk, J W,P. No,9634 of 2OOa Ref.No.B/S9/ /2007 dated ll.og.2oo1. As such, respondent No.10 is the absolute and legal or.r,n er to an extent of Ac.2_05 gts., of land situated at Keesara Daira (Village), Keesara Mandal, Ralga Reddy District artd the petitioners have no right u,hatsoever. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 are the o\\'rrers and possessors for an extent oi.Ac.1_03 gts., in Sy.No.264 arrd u,ere issued with ownership certificate as per Section 38-tr of the Act and respondent No.B is the orvner and possessor of l,and to an extent ol Ac.1_O3 gts., in Sy.No.264. It is further subm itted that petitioners are totally strangers to the lands and tha.t petitioners are not the sons of Smt.Tara Bai to succeed her. It is further submitted that Smt.Tara Bai died issueless and she has appointed one Dasaratha prasad as her General povvet. of Attornev ulde Doc.No.416 of l97S rvho had executed sever-al relinquishment deeds on behalf of Smt.Tara Bai' The certificates under Section 3B-E of the Act were issued on the basis of revenue records for the year 1950_51 to 1954_55 as on 0 1 . 1l .l9T 3 . The said certificates were issued as per Section 3(1) of the Act by following due procedure, as such the said notices have become final and they are the rightful .wners of the subject property arrd eventually prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 8 W.P, !10.9634 of 2ooa

7. Petitioner No.2 has filed a reply affidavit to the counter af{idavit reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit'

8. A memo has been filed by the petitioner on 7206'2023 enclosing another memo d'ated 20'03'2003 issued by Office of Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Offlcer' Ranga Reddy District stating that no 38-E certificate has been issued. in Sy.Nos. 156, 157 and 160 of Keesara Daira Village in thenameofNukalaGudamPeddaNarsaiahS/o.Mallarahuide Office Fiie no.B/3O5/LRE/75, as such request of the petitioner cannot be considered for issuance of patta certificate' The said memo was issued to one Mr.Ranjeet Prasad Hajari i.e', petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner d'raws attention of this Court to another memo dated 29 'O5'2OO3 ' wherein it is stated that no 38-E certificates have been issued in Sy'Nos' 156 to 160 ald 164 of Daira Village, Keesara Mandal uide Office File No.B/3O5/LRE/75' A similar memo dated li'01'2023 has also been filed whereby the applicant requested for final tenancy register for Sy.Nos'10, 11, 15, i6, 17'39' 123' 156' 157' 158' 159,160,164,257,262,263,264ofKeesaraDairaVillage'but on verification of records, the protected tenalcy for Sy'Nos'156' I57, 256, 264 were submitted however' the remaining Sy'Nos'

1., I I I I . l , i i i 1 1 I I i i l I 1 l i I 9 NVSI(, J w,P- No,9634 0f200a \{'ere not available in the said Ofhce. The sard memo was addressed t,r pandit Shiv Shankar Tiwari who is not the petrtioner he;.ein.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed another memo dated 03.12.2024 statirrg that petitioner No.2 has Iiled conrempt case in C.C.No.766 of 2024 against the orders passed in W.P.No.22S60 of 2019 before this Court and respondent therein i.e., the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal has filed additionai counter dateci 20.09.2024 whercin it is categoricaliy held that 38-E certificales were not genuine anci are created certificates. The copy of ttre said counter affidavit has also been filed a_long with the memc,. io Hearrl learned counsel on either side and perused the record.

11. on a perusar of the impugned order dated 1o.01.2006, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent Nc,.2, the petitioners are the appellants who preferred the szrid appeal uncier Section 90 of the Act aggrieved by the orders perssed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy t0 w.P, No,963zt or 2004 District, East Division in File No.B/305/LRE/75 dated 17 .O7.1975 granting ownership certificates under Section 3B-E of Tenancy Act in respect of iand bearing Sy.Nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 257, 262, 263 and 264 admeasuring Ac.45-24 gts., situated at Keesara Diara Manal, Rar-iga Reddy District. The case was taken up on record and notices were issued to both the parties and finaily called on 10.0 i.2006 and the appeilants (petitioners herein) were ca1led absent and the matter was decided on the material papers available. The said ownership certificates were issued on 17.O7.1975 in Case No.B/305/LRE/1975. The appeal preferred was in the year 2OO2 i.e., almost after a lapse of 27 years which is contrary to Section 93 of the Limitation Act which reads as under "section 93 of the Act reads as follort-ts: Euery appeal and euery appltcation for reubion under this Act shalL be filed u,)ithin sixtA dags from the date of the order against the appectl or application is fited ("and tlrc prouisians of Section 5 and Sections 72 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall applg for the purpose of extension and. computation of the said period.)" The relevant portion of the impugned order dated

10.01.2006 reads as follows: I ( I I I I I i I I1 W.P, l{0,9534 of 2OoA .ln the instant case, proceed.ings haue after 27 years of issuance of initiated 3B-E ceftific,ztes and the appeal u.tc,s barred- bg limitation. That c,.part, the appellant has not furnished, any reasons for delag as such the appeal tuas d,ismissed. as time barred.,,

12. It is pertinent to note that the subject matter of this q,rit petition pertains to Sy.Nos.10, 11, 15, 16, 252,262,263 and 264 r.r,herein in the memo filed by petitioner and in the repty file d by the petitioner the lald pertains to Sy.Nos.16O, i61 and 162 of Keesara Daira Village, as such they are not the subject matter of writ petition, and the submission to the extent of memos are nct sustainable. It is further to be noted that in the grounds urgeC in the writ petition r,vith regard to the issualce of occupancy cr:rtificates in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 12, it is sr-rbmitted tha-t the said fact came to the knowledge of petitioners ir-r the month of March, 2OO2 and that the appeal was preferred in the year 2006 and the impugned order was passed on 10.01.2006. The petitioners were found to be absent in the said appeal and did not pursue the matter and thereafter, filed the present writ pr:tition. t2 l{vsK, J W.P, No.9634 oa2ooa

13. It is to be further noted that in the counter filed by respondent No.3, the order passed by Joint Collector' Ranga Reddy District by order datedF2/2OOgl2OOO dated 22J2'2001 has been enclosed which is an appeal filed under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East Division granting certi{icate of ownership under Section 388 of Tenancy Act in favour of respondent Nos 3 and 4 and in favour of respondent Nos'5 to 7 in respect of la-nd bearing Sy.No' 123 to an extent of Ac'2O-37 gts., at keesara Diara Vi1lage, I(eesara Maldal' Ranga Reddy District. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein for reference: "The main contention of the appellanfs is that no notice u-tas issued to their mother, SmLTara BaL rttho u.tas th-e pattedar of the aboue said land' But as seen from the record.s, a notice in Form-lIl utas issued in the name of tlrcir mother and s?e has not filed ang objection in this case. Thus I am unable to agree uith the contention of the Counsel for the Appellants that no notice uas issued. to the pattedar at the ttme of enquiry for granting Certificate of OuLnership in respect of the said land. i I ) t I i t3 talsK, J w.P. No,9634 ot 2oos It is seen from the copies of pahanies for the gear 1968-69, 1969-70, 1gZ4-75, 1g76_77, t97g_BO, 19BB-89, 1989-90, jgg3_g4 and 1995_96 prod.uced bg the Co,:.Lnsel for Respond.ents, the respond.ents are found tt be in possession and enjoyment of the said land and /heir possession utas also neuer questioned bg the appeLlants herein. The Reuenue Dtuisional Officer after follouing the procedure laid. down und.er the act has granted. the certiJicate of ounership U/ s. 38 E of Tenancy Act in fauour of the respond.ents in the gea, 1975 itsetf. But, neither the mother of the appellar,.ts nor the appellants herein hctue taken ang sleps ro prefer appeal against the gro_nt of certtficate of ou,tnersh.ip by the Reuenue Diuisional Officer, RR East Diuision. The appellants haue failed to explain the inordinate delag of about 25 ttears in prefering this appeal h-t uiew of the foregoing ciiscussions, the appeal is dismls;sed and. th.e certi.fi.cate of ownership issued_ b14 the R,euenue Diuisional Officer, RR .Easr Diuision, U/ s.3B E of Tenancg Act in respect of the Sg. No. 123 of Keesara Daira. Village is herebg conf_rmed,.,, It is to be noted that the present writ petition pertains to Sy.Nos.tO, 11, 15, 16, 2SZ,262,263 and 264 of I{eesara Diara Village wherein the impugned order dated 10.01.2006 pertaining to case No.F2/5201/2oo2, asimilar view was taken by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and dismissed the appeal bv l4 I\LSK, J W.P, No.9534 of 2OOa order dated 22.12.2001 in File No.F2l2OO9 l20OO. In all these proceedings, petitioner did not furnish any reason for delay, as such the appeals are dismissed as time barred.

14. In the case of Karno:tqkrr Power Corporation Litnited u. K.Thangappdttl tine Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to delay and laches, held at paragraph Nos.6 to 9 as follows: "6. Delag or laches is one of the factors uthich is to be borne in mind bg the High Court u-then theg exercise their discretionary pouers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropiate case the High Court may refuse to inuoke its extraordinarA pouers if there is such negligerrce or omission on tle part of the applicant to assert his rigttt as taken in conjunction uith the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejud.ice to the opposite partA. Euen uthere fund,amental ight is inuolued the matter is still tuithin the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad u. Chief Controller of Imporls and Exports (AIR 1g7O SC 769). Of coTlrse, the discretion has to be exercised judiciallg and reas onablg.

7. What uas stated, in this regard bg Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsag Petroleum Company u' Prosper Armstrong Hurd etc. (1874 (5) P.C 221 at page 239) was approued bg this Court in Moon Mills Ltd' u' ' (2006) 4 scc 322 / 5 w.P No.9634 0f200a I ) Indusbial Courts (AIR j967 SC 14SO) and. Maharashtra State F'oad Transporl Corporation u. Bqltuant Regular Motor ,seruice (AIR 1969 SC 329). Sir Barnes had stated: "Nou,t, the doctine of laches in Coufts oJ. Ecluitg is not an arbitraru or technic:al d_octnne. Where it uould be practicallg unjust to giue a re;nedg either because the partg hcLs, by his co,Lduct done that tuh.ich might fairlg be regard.ed as equiualent to a tuaiuer of it, or where by his cottduct and neglect lLe has though perhaps not Luc,,iuing thctt remedg, Aet put the other parly irt ct sifuation in u.thich it would. not be reasonable to plctce him if the remedA were afterward.s to be as:;erted-, in either of these cases, lapse of time anrl delag are most material. But in euery case, if atl argument agctins| relief, which otherunse u,ottld be just, if founded- upon mere delag, that dektg of course not amounting to a bar bg uny statute of limitation, ttte uatid.itg of that clefence mu:;t be tried upon principles substantially equ;.table. Two circumstances alwags important in s,-tch cases are, the length of the d.elag and. the natLLre of the acts done during the interual uhich might affect either partg and. cause a balance oJ. justtce or injustice in tcLking the one course or the othe., so far as relates to the remedg.,,

1.6 B. It tttould be appropriate to note certain decisions of tltis Court in which this aspect has been deatt uitLt in relation taith Article 32 of the Constitution' It is apparent that uLhat ltas been stated as regards that Article uould applg, a fortiori, to Article 226' It u.tas obserued. in R.N. Bose u' Union of India (AIR 197O SC 47O) tltat no reiief can be giuen to th'e petitioner uLLto uithout anA re(lsonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 aft'er inordinate delag ' It uas stated. that tltough Article 32 is itself a guaranteed ight, it does not fotlottt from this that it utas the intention of the Constitution makers that this Court should. disregard atl pinciptes and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delag'

9. It uas stated in State of M'P' u' Nandlal (AIR 1gB7 SC 251), tLat tlrc HigLt Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinanlg assist the tardg and the indolerut or the acquiescent and the tethnrgic lf there is inordinate d-elag on the part of tkrc petitioner and such d,elag is not satisfactorilg explained' the High Court mag decline to interuene and grant relief in exercise of its wit jurisdiction. It uLas stated that this ntle ts premised on a number of factors ' The High Court does not ordinarilg permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedg because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconuenience and bing, in its train nertt injustices, and if u.tit jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable detag, it mag Ltaue the effect of inJTicting not onlg hnrd"ship and inconuenience but also 17 W.P, Ito.9634 ot 2OOa LftJustice on third parties. It was pointed. out that when wit jurisdiction is inuoked,, unexplained. d.elay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an inrportant factor which also weighs u.,ith the High Court in decicling whether or not to exercise such juisdiction.

15. With regard to the mixed question of fact ald law, which is the preliminary issue in the present writ petition. the Hon'ble Suprr-.me Court in Rq.mesh B.Desai u, Bipin Vadilal Mehtaz ir-r paragraph l9 held as follou,s: "l\). 4 O1.o of limitation cannot be decid.ed. as an abstract principle of law cliuorced, from facts as in euery case the starting point of limitation has to be asceftcLined which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of !ilnitation is a mixed. question of law ctnd fact. The que:;tion u.thether the u,nrds ,,barred. bg law,, occurnng in Orcler VII RuLe j 1(d) CpC wottlcl also include the g1round. that it is bqrred bg lau_, of Limitatton has been recentlg consid.ered. bg a tuo Judge Betclt of this Court to u.fiich one of us was a member (,\shok Bhan J.) in Ciuil Appeal No. ?,539 of 2OO3 (Balasaria Construction put. Ltd,. us. Hanuman Seua Trust and, others) d ecicled_ on 8.1 1.2OO5 and it tttas held: ' lzoooi s scc 6:ts 18 W.P. l{0.9634 of2ooa "After hearing counsel for the parties ' going through the plaint, application under Ord-er 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and the judgments of the tiat court and the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred. bg limitition tuithout proper pleadiruEs, framing of an issue qf limitation and taking of euidence' Question of limitation is a mixed question of lau and fact' Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the paint it cannot be held that the suil is barred bg time." t6. In the ground,s urged in the writ petition' it ts submittedthatrespondentNo.2dismissedtheappealonthe ground of limitation mlssing to see that no notice was served on the petitioners or their mother before issuance of ORC in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 12 till the first week of March' 2002' However, the present writ petition was filed in the year 20O8' The petitioners have not duly contested the rnatter' and ought to have diligently pursued in appeal' It is further to be noted that petitioner in the writ averments, submitted that MRO' Keesara Mandal uide proceedings dated 25.03'1996 has issued order of succession to pattadar right in their favour as being its rightful owners. H$*eu.r, no copy of order of succession declaring the t9 W,P. No,9634 of 2OOa petitioner as successor of late Tara Bai has been filed along with the r.r,rit petition. However, in the reply, a copy of death certificate dated 27.06.2006 has been filed wherein it was certified that .he said Tara Bai expired on 26.11.1gg2. However, a dependalt ,:ertificate, was issued by Tahsildar certifying the petitioners as dependants and the same cannot be considered as it is not a valid succession certificate and the said dependent certificate does not sustain in the eye of law. lt is also striking to note that petitioner at every stage had delayed in pursuing the matter

17. Takirg tnto consideration, the set of facts and crrcumstances rf the case and in view of the above cited judiciai pronounceme ltt s, this Court is of Lhe vierv that there is conttnuous dela-y, latches and petitioners couid not substantiate on the issue of limitation, and could not explain and make submissions orr this aspect. In the impugned order dated 10.01.2006, on r.he issue of delay, it is observed as follows: " In the instant case, the institution of proceeding s 2Z gears after the issuance of 3BE certifi.cate nilitates against aLl canons of justice and. one utho has slept ouer his rtghts for such an ertraordinary length of time should, not be allowed to 20 NVSI(, J W,P. No.9634 of 2OOa litigate in respect of those rights. The appeal is barred bg the sheer antiquity and obscurity oJ the transctction. Furlher, the appellant has not furnished. any reason for delag. Her"ce the appeal is dismlssed as being barred by time.,, 18. As such, the impugned order dated 10.01.2006 passe cl by Joint Collector, Rarga Reddy District i. e., respondent No.2 warrants no interference. This writ petition is devoid of merits, fails ald accordingly stands dismissed.

19. With all the above observations, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shajl be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous alcplications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. (for His Lordships Kind Perusal RAVAN KUMAR To, W '1. One CCto SRI KSARVA BHOUMA RAO, Advocate. [OPUCI 2. Iwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana louTl

3. One CC to SRI CH.OMERNATHAN, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI M.V. PRATAP KUIUAR' Advocate. IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI S.SRINIVASA SHARMA, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. 'l I LR.Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company B. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Affairs, New Delhi Hyderabad. 9. Two CD Copies. :-:a!41: :a ) - BSK ; I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 li,1L 2 2 0frP2 SE li p.1,T Cil .',) )l' ORDER WP.No.9634 of 2008 D!SMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS u( r% t