The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. B MAHENDER REDDY 3tsHi'[?,j!e Respondent Nos.1 ro 3: SRI KATRAM MURALTDHAR REDDY counser forthe Respondent No.4: Ms. G.sUDHA sc FoR NTpcL Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI T. VENKAT RAJU Gp FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ./2 ,/ // THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY W.A.No.793 of 2O25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Si Aparesh Kumar Singh) Mr. B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Katram Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. G.Sudha, learned Stalding Counsel for National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) representing respondent No.4. Mr. T.Venkat Raju, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.5

2. The petitioners approached the writ Court as allegedly respondent No.3 had refused to change the name of the nominee of the original land oustees of the designated plot. The land r,r,as sought to have been acquired for establishment of the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in the year 1.979. According to the petitioners, since the original land oustees became over aged by now, the \.' \' .,,i..'' r, \. "'-,- ?. narnes of the petitioners were sought to be included as the nominees of the original land oustees so that they can avail the benefit of the Land Loser Scheme, under which employment was being given b1' the NTPC. The learned writ Court upon hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the same on the sole ground of delay and laches. It, hou'ever, gave liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps tn accordance with law by approaching the competent civil Court. Being aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court in appeal

3. Learned counsel for tl-re appellants submits that the process of conferring employment to the land losers is stil1 underway. He has also referred to the decisiotl rendered in a batch of writ petitions lead by W.P.No.24886 oI 2OO1 u'herein the writ Court had uide its order dated 28.12.2OO1 held that if any ol the candidates who were earlier nc,minated have become ineligible by virtue of over age or not acquiring the necessary qualification, they can certainly nominate one arnong the family members who are eligible to be considered for such appointment. Be it also indicated that the iearned writ Court has also observed that once the land losers or their ,' .{' l' ,l nominees, who have earlier participated in the selection ald couid not be selected, they cannot be permitted to participate again in the selection process under the garb of changing nomination, as their cases were already rejected in the year It is the case of the petitioners that since the 1989 . consideration of such land losers is being done by the NTPC and they are being conferred employment, the petitioners be also included as nominees of the original land losers so that they can stake a claim.

4. The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsei for the NTPC and learned counsel for the State

5. Learned counsel for the NTPC submits that the process of conferring employment after sponsoring of their names through the Employment Excharige though has been going on, but the petitioners cannot claim parity of { consideration after lapse of 36 years when the original land oustees have never made any effort to seek employment in that category. Many of such original land losers had small parcels of land which could also not qualify under the Land I '.',;} a' Losers Scheme. The writ Court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter on the ground of delay ancl laches.

6. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to the judgrnent referred to above as back as the year 200 l. I{e submits that these petitiorrers are not one of those r,r,ho have become ineligibie by virtue of over age or not acquiring necessary qualification arld that too rnhen the process of consideration rvas underway. At this stage, zrfter 36 vears, they cannot claim parity with those u,ho approached the u.rit Court in the year 2001. Therefore, their claim mav be rejected. 7 . Learned counsei for tl-re appellants in rep11. has referred to an order passed by learned writ Court in W.P.No.31630 of 2013 on 05. 12.2Ot3 and also the decision rendered in W.p.No.2792Z of 2013 on 26.Og.2013 and submitted that upon the directions of the learned writ Court. such certif,rcates have been issued in favour of the nominees like the present petitioners as late as 2022.

8. We are, however, not convinced witlL the claim of parity only on the sore ground of the delay a,,d laches which I l' 5 surround the appellants in approaching the Court after 36 years of the acquisition. Much water has flown down since the acquisitions were made and consideration of land oustees were made. Such Land Losers Scheme cannot be expected to be kept alive for conferring employment to the successors of the original land losers at such length of time' The learned writ Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the wit petition on the ground of delay and laches, but with a liberty to them to approach the competent civil Court in accordarce with law' We do not find any error in the impugned judgment' 9 Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed' There sha1l be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/.N. SRIHARI ISTRAR DEPUTY R SEC FFTCER To,

1. One CCto SRI' B MAHENDER REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Ms G SUDHA SC FOR NTPCL [OPUCI 3. Two CCs to GP "' "ol'"t]ti'il 4. Two CCs to GP FoR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana C""t i"t irlt Staie of Telangana at HYderabad. IOUTI touTl

5. Two CD CoPies KKS LS Yr HIGH COURT i DATED:2410712025 t ^-\ Y.. 1a IEP na ,, !, ()r,..-, (l !-t F--o { 1l ,.) * JUDGMENT WA.No.793 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS () n p(d \ck <{s\ab