A. Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any or writs order or directiqn more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 2lo 4 in deleting the names of wrongly incorporated individuals i. e. respondents 5 to 8 from the revenue records and incorporate our names in respect of Sy no 297 an extent of Ac l3- 00 gts situated at Jagathpally Village, pe,ddamandadi Mandal, wanaparthy District ,'Mahbubnagar), Telangana. As per the proceedings of the Sub- collector and oRC 6-4896/92 dated 3l- oz- 1992, it is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 to restore nry name in Bhoo Bharathi and issue patta passbooks. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under :lection i 51 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 No. 2lo 4 nor to entertain any sale deed or gift deeds or any other documents presented by the Respondents No. 5 to g and their associates in respect of the suit :;cheduled property. The property is succeeded from the ancestors, as per the family partition by considering the oRC proceedings B,14896192 dated 31- t)7- 1992 and the respondents submitte,d no objection to the revenue authorities daled 27- 07- 1992 as stated on oath pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. MALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8:--- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.174O5 of 2o.25 ORDER It is stated that the petitioner's grandfather by name A.Venkat Reddy was the absolute owner, possessor and inamdar of the agricultural land adrheasuring Acs.13.O0 guntas in Sy.No.297, situated at Jagathpally Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District and the Sub-Collector, Gadwal also issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in his name uide proceedings No.B/4896192, dated 31.O7.1gg2. It is further stated that, after the death of the petitioner's grandfather, the father of the petitioher by name A.Ram Reddy and his brothers have succeeded to the said property and they have been in possession of the same. It is further stated that the names of the predecessors-in-intdrest of the petitioner were recorded in the revenue records. It is further stated that, as on the date of enforcement of the Telangd.na Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the petitioner's grandfather wab in possession of the said property and after conducting due enquiry, ORC was issued. It is further stated that, after expiry of tfre petitioner's grandfather Pouthi lzafa/Succession was not sanotioned in the name of the petitioner and he made number of rgpresentations seeking for 2 C\tsR, J wp-17405 2025 .\ mutation of his name as successor of the origina inamdar and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook.

2. Conside red the submissions made by the learned counsel for the partier; and with their consent this writ p(.tition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner has srrbmitted that even after ir;suance of ORC in lavour of t]re petitioner's grandfather, the respondent authorities did not mutate his name in the revenue records and thereby, he is nrrt in a position to receive various incentives sanctioned by the (iovernment as investment sr-rbsidy for cultivation of the said land.

4. Sri L.Rrlvinder, learned Assistant Governmr:nt Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the petitioner has r,.:lied upon the ORC proceeriings, dated 31.O7.1992. If tLLe petitioner's grandfather vras granted ORC, the petitioner is entitled to make an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook under the provisions oJ' the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks P'et, L97 | (for short "the ROR Act, 197 l"l. 3 CVBR, J Wp_17 405 _2025

5. Admittedly, in this case, though it is stated that the petitioner's grandfather was issued ORC in the year 1992, no steps have been taken for mutation of his name in the revenue records in consonance with Section lt of the ROR Act, 1971.

6. The Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and lachep, in the case of State of Maharashtra us, Digambarl, obselved as under:- "A three-Judge Bench of this Cotrrt in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (U SCR 808], reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delay as that which applied in exercise o[ power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Arncle 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting relief to a person incltuding a citizen without considering his disentitlement fqr such relief due to his blame-worthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming tJ e same, such a directi0n, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not 6nade judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. I (199s) suPP 1 scR - 4 n CVtsR. J wp_t7405 2025 Thrrs, when the writ ott'uot"t (respon( lent here) was guirty of .raches or urro delav in approaching the High court, the onr",o*li,ll, undue delav adverted to abo'c, dj5.rr1ig.o *. -r::1t-:.or petitioner (respondent here) for " disc:-etionary .",;;;;;. Article 226 or the consritution from the ;,; ;;,'r attenrpt had been -.0" l*l"u'arly' wherr virtua-lry no by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- worthy condu t of undue dela'v High court, ,;;:;" 'rr laches. The in +anting rerief rn reration to inquiring ,i,In-:"'urong the allegation and granting compr:nsation ro. ni" trr,J .. alleged to have ['ssn u".a ro. scarci ty relief road **t. irl r the year jg7 l_72.. In the. case of Jl[rinomg Maitg vs. Chhq.ndq. Koleg and. 7 . others2, the Hon,Lrle Supreme Court observed as under: ";;""er :lr'r, time and asain has held that d,:lay dereats rs one of the factors wlrich should High court while exercising Arucle 226 of the co,sritution the High court ma" refuse to -ir'" Powers if laxity on the pz*t of ttre has allowed the cause of "rro ,l*t made sur,seqlr.,ti, .equlty. Delay or laches ir "]l: be bonr,""-*;";; discreti.nary oo*"r" ,.oon" of India t ; invoke irs;il#' applical L ,o ."""., action to drift away to rekind Le,h.,.o"";;:t.Iff: The case of the petitioner is that, nearl) after three decades, he is rowEaTmtng rights as pattadar relying upon the B , (2024) 4 scR so6 llerIEEtr*. / I 5 C\tsR, J Wp 174Os 2O2s ORC alleged to have issued by the Sub-Collector in the year 1992. It is settled principle of law that the parties are not entitled to seek correction of revenue entries after long lapse of time and the parties have to approach the authorities within a reasonable period, though the statute has not prescribed any time limit. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REG ISTRAR S lo N OFFICE R/ tate of Telangana, To,

1. The PrinciP al Secretary' Revenue DePartment' T 2 J 4 5 6 Secretariat Hyd erabad TS- The District Collector' WanaParthY District, WanaPa rthy (Mahbubnagar) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ped mand Vri an The Tahsildar, Peddam andadi Mandal, One CC to Sri P. Malla Cs to GP for P.ev Two C Hydera bad [oU! ReddY, CNUE, H igh Court for adi Mandal, WanaParthY District aparthy District. Advoc ate [Otn'""J,r," of relangana, at

7. Two CD Copies o. TJ TK t I HIGH COUIRT DATED:2410612025 ORDER WP.No.17405 of 2025 DlSMlSSll\lc THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a