High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities, particularly the respondents 03 and 04, in causing enquiry and accordingly award ing compensation to the petitioner for the subject land to an extent of Ac.03-00 gts in Sy.No.252126 of Hakeempet Village, Dudyal l\Iandal of Vikarabad District on par with other similarly situated assignment patta holders, despite the representation of the petitioner d1.03.06.2025 and proceeding to take away the possession of subject land as illegal, u nconstitutiona l, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities to take all necessary steps as required under the law, for providing compensation and all other consequr:ntial benefits for the subject assigned land to an extent of Ac.03-00 gts in Sy No 252126, on par with adjoining and similarly sttuated assignment patta holders of Hakeempet Village, Dudyal tr4andal of Vikarabad District that are beinq laken for establishing Multipurpose lndustrial Park. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under ,Section 151 CPC praying that in the circr:"nstances stated in the affidavit filed in s:pport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondenls not to interfere in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the petit oner over the subject land to an extent of Ac,03-00 gts in Sy. No.252126 of Hakeempet Village, Dudyal Mandal of Vikarabad District Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD ABDUL ISMAIL ZABET,LLAH counser for the Resp'ndents No"tto' ' iBJixi'JxStiJ[[53RIi Counsel for the Respondents No.S : SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18635 of 2o25 ORDER Tl-ris q,rit petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent authoritics, particularly respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in causing enquiry and accordingly, awarding compensation to the petitioner for the subject land admeasuring Acs.O3.OO guntas in Survey No.252 /26, situated at Hakeempet Village, Dudyal Mandal, Vikarabad District on par with other similzrrlv situatcd assignment patta holders, despite thc representation of the petitioner dated 03.06.2O25 and in contrary, proceeding to take away the possession of the subject land as il1ega1, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. lt is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Hakeempet Village and as his father was a landless agricultural worker, the Government had granted assignment for the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.252 /26 vide patta certificate No.84l 1684l70-33, dated 16.04.1970 as per the policy enunciated by the Government uide G.O.Ms. No. 14O6, dated

26.07.1958. It is further stated that, after the death of his father, the petitioner had inherited the rights over the subject 2 C\/8R. J Wp 18635 l0l: land. IL i:r [urther stated that the petitioner's name rvas continued in the revenue records till thc year, 20lO, but thereafter t he name of thc petitioner was discontinued from the revenLre rc{'ords and the said land was also missing from the pahar-ri. It is further stated that the said land rvas proposed to be acquirc, r for thc purpose of establishment of Industrial Park. The griei,irnce of the petitioner is that the responclent authorit.ies did not co:-,sidcr his case for payment of compensation on par q,ith the ottrer assignces.

3. Considercd the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy, Additional Advocate General appearing tirr respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Stanrling Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and u,ith their (:on s(:nt, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admisslrn stage. 4 . Le a rned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of t.tr: petitioner was assigned the land ancl he was issued final pattrL r:ertificatc and the subject land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park. Since thc Ciovernment has granted patta certiflcate in terms of the G ove rr-rn're nt's policy, the assignees are entitled for issuance - 3 CVBR, J Wp 1361j 2025 of pattadar passbook, either under the provisions of the Tclangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197 I (for short "the ROR Act, 1971") or under the provisions of the Tclarngana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (lor short "the Act 9 of 2O2O"l. He further submits that the petitioncr is also entitled for payment of compensation and in supporl of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in LAO- cum-RDO, Cheoella Division, Domalaguda., Hgderabad v. Mekala Pandut , wherein it is held that the assignees are entitlcd to compcnsation on par with the pattadars of the land.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondcnts contended that after the land was assigned, the petitioner alienated the same in favour of third parties by way of sadabainama. Consequently, his name was deleted from the revenue records, and for the past 15 years, the names of the subsequent purchasers have been reflected therein. It is submitted that based on the existing entries in the revenue records, the respondent authorities have determined and disbursed compensation to those individuals. Thus it is contended that the petitioner has no subsisting right or title ' zoo+ 1z1n LD 451 I CVI]R, J \\'p 18635 2025 over thc sr rbjcct l.rnd and hence, the present writ petition is not mainiai:ra rlc and is liable to be dismisscd.

6. TIre Hon'blc Suprcmc Court, while dealing with the issue relating tt, r.:nduc clelaSr 26d laches in State o.f Mqharashtra us. Digannbd.r2, obscrved as undcr:- "A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Moharashlra State Rotrct Trarrsport Corporation u- Shi Balwant Regular Motor Seruice, Amrauati & Ors. [1969 (1)SCR BO8/, reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delag a-* that u.hich apptie:d in exercise of potuer bg the High Court under Article 225 r.,l the Constitution. 'l'herefore, uhere a l-Iigh Court in exerose of its potuer uested under Arlicle 226 of ttrc Con.stitution is.sues a direction, order or tuit.for granting rehcl lo ct person including a citizen uithout con.sideing his disen: itletnent for such relief due to his blame worthg conrhtct of undue detag or laches [n claiming the same, such a di'c.':tiot-1, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciouslg and reasonablg in exercise of its sound judicful discretion, but as that made arbitrarilg. x-r,r 'l'hus, uhen the tuit petitioner (respondent here) uas guiltll of kLc.t es t>r undue deLag tn approaching the High Court, the pincir',le of lctches or undue delag aduerterT to aboue, dist,rti,tled the uit petitioner (respondent here) for cltst:retionctry relief under Article 226 of the Constitution front tlre lTigh Court, partia artA, when uirtuallg no attempt had bten made bg the urit petitioner to explairt his blame- u.torth.2 conduct of undue delag or laches. The High Coun, theref,.re, utas wholly wrong in granting relief h relotion to inquirutg into tlTe allegotion and granting compensation for his land alleged to haue been used for scarcitl1 relief road tuorks in the llear 1971-72.......' ' (tgg5) supp t ;cR CVBR, J Wp_1863s 202s

7. In thc case of Mrtnomg Maitg os. Chhanda Koleg and others3, thc l{on'ble Suprcme Court obscrved as under: "This Court ime and agatn hos held that delag dekats equity. Delag or laches is one of the factors which should be bom in rnind by the High Court whitA exerci"sing discretionary potuers under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inclia. In a giuen case, the High Court moA refuse to inuoke its extraordi.nary poluers if loxitg on the part of the applicant to ossert his ight hos allouted the cause of action to drift atuag and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action"

8. In thc present case, the pctitioner, except stating that his father rvas issued with a final patta certificate and relying on certain entries in thc pahanies, has not placed any pattadar passbook on record. The petitioner has neither produced any clocumentary evidence showing the issuance of pattadar passbook under the ROR Act, 1971 nor under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O. Further, even during the operation of the ROR Act, 7971, the petitioner did not mate any application or prefer arly appeal to seek rectification of entries in the revenue records. He also failed to avail the opportunity during the Land Records Updation Programme to assert his claim. Instead, he allowed the names of third parties, who allegedly purchased the land under sadabainama, to remain in the revenue records for more than ' (2024) 4 scR 506 \ \ 6 CVBR. J Wf 166i5 202s 15 years r.ithout challenge. Having remaincd silent for such a long peri, ci and s,ithout placir-rg any conclusive cvidence on rccord, 1.[-] r pctitioner no$, clerims entitlement 1o compcnsirtion Such a r:lairn, made u.ith inordinate delay, does not merit consideririion under Articlc 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. ln Inder Singh us. Dhanna Singh and anothera. lhe Hon'ble St:prcme Court held as follou,s: "The proposition that a presumption of correctness attaches to the ,:ntries made in the reuenue papers prepared ot a later date ir preference to the enties made in earlier records, as the laler enties are supposed to haue correct.rd errors, tf ana, tlLat might haue eisted tn the earlier recortTs, does not seenl to be sound- In law, presumption of correctness attaches to the records prepared in accordan ce tuith the prouisbns of the Land Reuenue Act at uhaleu,zr period of time ttrey might haue been preparecl unless the later record in exltress tenns declares that the ecirlier e,nties uere incot<t:t. " ln the instant case, as on date, no entry stands in the name of the petitior-er in thc revenue records either as zr pattadar or as an assigne('. In the absence of such supporting documents, and in vieu, of the admitted fact that the names of third parlies have been reflected in the revenue records for over 15 years, the petitioner's claim for compensalion is untenable. It is well settlecl that a lethargic attitude cannot be countcnanced for the o 1tssz1 z scc:;z+ 7 CVBR, J wp 186i5. 2025 purpose of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Therefore, the present writ petition liled by thc petitioner is misconceived and the same is liable to bc dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. D/.B. REKHA RANI ANT REGISTRAR SI ,TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER ,O,,, . ON" CC tO SRI MOHD ABDUL ISMAIL ZABEULLAH' AdVOCAIC' [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL' High Court for the State of ' i;;"sr;; at HYderabad [oUr] 3. One CC to SRI M SRIKANTH REDDY' SC FOR TGIIC IOPUCI 4 Two CD CoPies BSK BS A. 1/'' n' HIGH COURT DATED:03107,t2025 ,1 --) 17 ll[T 2ffi5 -\+ ORDER WP.No.18635 of 2025 DISMISSING TI.IE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS 7 /.< ,/// /zo,zl{