Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Rc

Judgment

1. a 3 4 5 r) 7 o I The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Chief Commissioner Land Administration, Telangana State, at Hyderabad. The District Collector, Vikarabad District. The Revenue Division Officer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District. Komarambanda Buchaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Kadmur Village of Pudur l\Iandal' Vikarabad District. Komarambanda Jangaiah, S/o Buchaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Kadmur Village of Pudur Mandal, Vikqrabad District. Komarambanda Lingaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged about 29 yearc, Occ Pvt,. Employee, Rl/o Kadmur Village of Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District. Komarambanda Yadaiah, S/o Kistaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture, Rlio Kadmur Village of Pudur lVlandal, Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the against inaction of the Respondent No.3 to 5 in considering my representation Dt 2010812025 [ rectify the revenue records with regard to the Agriculture land to an extent of i ,c.2-10gts in sy No- 201 of Kankal Viltage of Pudur Mandal Vikarabad District is I :gal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violatior of Article 14' 19' 21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia, consequently direct the F t spondents No.3 to 5 to rectify the revenue records and enter the Petitioners n.rl les thereby deleting the names of the Respondents No. 6 to 9 with regard to the I ,griculture land to an extenl of Ac.2-10gts in Sy No. 20',l of Kankal Village of Pu,l tr lr/andal Vikarabad District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 to 5 to conduct physical par:hanama and rectify the revenue records with regard to Agriculture land to an <,; tent of Ac.2-1Ogts in Sy No. 201 of Kankal Village of Pudur Mandal vikarabad Di ,trict, enter the name of the Petitioner in revenue records thereby deleting the names of the Respondents No. 6 to 9. Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counset forthe Respondents No.1 to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUI: Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 to 9: - The Court made the following: ORDER .! 7 ,-) l-r;:: . ffit-=--- ?HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL IIIRIT PETITION No.354OO ot 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seek,:rg the foliowing reliel- "to issue al appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the against inaction of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in considering the petitioners' representation, dated 20 l08 12025 to rectify the revenue records with regard to the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.2O1 of Kankal Village, Pudur Marrdal, Vikarabad District, a illegal, arbitrary ald in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 30OA of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents Nos.3 to 5 to rectify the revenue records and enter the Petitioners names thereby deleting the names of Respondents Nos.6 to 9 with regard to tlle agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2. 10 guntas in Sy.No.2O 1 of Kankal Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District... "

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 5 and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with' _unofficial 2 FVV. J wp.li-lt)t) 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would srL ,rnit that. the fathers of the petitioners, by name Pedda Ramrrlr Ranrulu, have jointly ptrrchased the agrr! and Chinna ltr-irai IanC admeasuring Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.2O1 of h: nkal Villagc, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District from larvfL I og,ner viz. Komarambanda Buchaiah, through simple sal: deerd, dated

10.04.1969 and after the death of their fathers, rl c pctitior-re rs have succeeded to the said property. learned c r rnscl for the petitioners vrould further submit that, after thc l 'ath of t heir father, the petitioners have approached respondcn No.5 w.ith a request to grant succession and consequential r utation and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, iL i inlormed to the petitioners that the their father failed to get n:r tation of the schedule property in their favour and the namcs I -rcsponclcnt Nos.6 to 9 are reflected in the revenue records. I 'rerefore, the petitioners made a representation, dated 20.O8.2O ) i sccking for rectification of the entries in the revenue records. I he grievance of the petitioners is that, even after receipt rf the said representation, respondent No.5 did not consider t I 'same.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader lor I icvenuc has submitted that as per Section 4 of the Telanganei F i thts in Land I I I Y :) 3 E\ry, J wp i5400 _2025 and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l (for short "the ROR Act, l97l"l, the person, who acquires rights shall intimate in writing with iegard to acquisition of suctr right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that even if the Tahsildar has not mutated the names of the petitioners and not issued the pattadar passbooks as per the time specified, the petitioners are having right to approach the revisional authority under Section 9 ol the ROR Act, 1971

5. Admittedly, in this case though it is stated that the father of the petitioners were purchased the subject property in the year 7969, no such steps have been taken by the father of the petitioners for mutation of their names, issuance of pattadar passbooks and consequential amendment ol thc entries in the revenue records in consonance with Section 4 of the ROR Act, t97 r.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra as. Digambarr, observed as under:- :_ 1 qpss) suPP 1 scR I l l/ 4 EV\'. i wp 3,;100 1015 "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mahzrr:r: Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Rc3 Sen'ice, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (1) SCR 808], rcir said principle of laches or undue delay as t appireC in exercise of power by the High C I Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, ult Court in exercise of its power vested under Ar-l the Constitution issues a direction, order () granting relief to a person including a citizl considering his disentitlement for such reliel r blame-worthy conduct of undue dela;' or claiming the same, such a direction, order or u,r'i unsustainable as that not made judicir r reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial dist r as that made arbitrarily. ltra State rlar Motor irai.-d the Lat wh,ch rrt under -e a High :le 226 ol' writ for r wrthout ue to his achcs in becomes sly and ition, but XXX Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondenl i r:re) was guilty of lacires or undue delay in approachin 3 t hc High Court, the principle of laches or undue delav ,r, \,erted to above, disentitled the writ petitioner (respondcrr here) for discreLionary relief under Article 226 of the C ) rstitution from the High Court, particularly, when lir ually no attempt had bee n made by the u,rit petitioner r l explain his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or Ilhes. The High Court, therefore, was whoily wrong in gra I ing relief in relation to inquiring into the allegation an 1 granting compensation for his land alleged to have bec r used for scarcity relief road works in the year l97l-72.... . " i i 7 5 EVV, J \\ip _35400 2025

7. In the case of Mrinomg Maitg as. Chhanda Koleg and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time and again has held tirat delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the lactors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinaqr powers if laxity on the pa-rt of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action" B. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing the matter by making application I seeking lor mutation and consequential issuance of pattadar pass books when the ROR Act, 1971 was in force. Admittedly, the ROR Act, l97l has been repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O, which is also repealed and replaced by the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. Therefore, the writ petition hled by the petitioners is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. \ ' lzoz+1 + scn soe 6 E\-\I. J I p 354tt0 2025 ,) g. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs Miscell rneous petitions, if any, pending ;hall stzrnd closed. SD/.F,. PONNA KRISHNA -ANT REGISTRAR ASSII; ,:-- i-./ //TRUE COPY// I ECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GF for Revenue, High Court for the Stl e of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies \ MP .;,fu1 I HIGH COURT DAT'I:D:2011112025 - ., __a--: t:,-\.! r l i ., ,qlr--."r ' i-., <) (-) t-) 2 ? tlr 2p5 , j; '.- ,1 ,. -,,/ ,.,.',...-:'),. \ ORDER WP.No.35400 of 2025 DISMISSING THE UJRIT PETITION WIT {OUT COSTS 6 \ \e iEi&* r,: I I