1. Race Gopal Reddy v. '1 . The State of Telangana

B. Mettu Srinivas, D/o Mettu Jangaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl./o Venkatapura Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R. R. District.

9. Mettu Suvarna, W/o Late Mettu Srisailam, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o Venkatapura Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R. R District. 10. Mettu Prakash, S/o Mettu Jangaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture' Fl/o Venkatapura Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R. R. District.

11.Smt. Muddem Sujatha, Wo Anji Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Home Maker, R/o Shamahabad Village and Mandal, R. R. District.

12.Smt. Muddem Shankaramma, W/o Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Home Maker, Rl/o Shamshabad Village and Mandal, R' R. District. ...RESPONDENTS 7 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd ii circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, m() praying that in the I igh Cou rt may be e particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of tl-r Respondents No. 3 to 5 in declaring the petitioners as Protective Tenants in res r land to an extent of Ac.1-35gts in Sy No. 37, Ac. 0-1 'l gts 32gts in Sy No.45, Ac.1B-1Bgts in Sy No.95 and Ac. 15-09111 >ct of the Agriculture n Sy No. 38, Ac. 'l- ; in Sy No. 432 thus totaling Ac.38-05gts of Ramanujapur Village, Shamshabad lv as per the order in Case No. 84116544178, DT. 21111114 Collector, R. R. District, at Hyderabad, passed in favou' Narsimha Reddy is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of vio i Natural Justice and also in violation of Article 14, 19,21 anc of lndia, consequently direct the Respondents No.3 to 5 cr as Protective Tenants in respect of above land by virtue : 84116544178, DT. 2111111981 passed by Joint Collector Hyderabad, and thereby cancel the patta by rectifying recorded in the name of the Respondent No. 6 to 12. andal, R. R. District, 31 passed by Joint of our father Race tion of Principles of ]00-A of constitution clare the petitioners ' order in Case No. R. R. District, at re revenue entries lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n,i Respondent No.3 to 5 to suspend the Raithu Bandu ar schemes in respect of the schedule of land Ac.1-35gts in Sy in Sy No.38, Ac. l-32gts in Sy No.45, Ac.1B-1Bgts in Sy No in Sy No. 432 thus totaling Ac.38-05gts of Ramanujapur' Mandal, R. R. District in favour of the Respondent No. 6 to 12 umstances stated in y be pleased to this I other beneficiary No.37, Ac.0-11gts )5 and Ac. 15-09gts 'illage, Shamshalvd pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 12:. - The Court made the following: ORDER =/ I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35396 of 2O25 ORDER: Tiiis V'rit Petition is filed seeking the following relief:- "to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direclion more particularly one in t1 e nature of Writ of maldamus declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in declaring the petitioners as Protective Tenants in respect of the Agriculture Iand to ar extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.37; Ac.O. 11 guntas in Sy.No.38; Ac.l.32 guntas in Sy.No.45; Acs. 18.18 guntas in Sy.No.9S and Acs. 15.09 guntas in Sy.No.432 thus totaling Acs.38.O5 guntas, situated at Ramanujapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ralrga Reddy District as per the order in Case No. 84/\6544/78, dated 2l/ll/1981 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad passed in favour of their father Race Narsimha Reddy, as illegal, arbitrary ald in violation of violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 , 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to declare the petitioners as Protective Tenants in respect of above land by virtue of order in Case No.B4/16544178, dated 27/11/1981 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and thereby cancei the patta by rectifying the revenue entries recorded in the name of Respondent Nos.6 to 12... "

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government i I \ 2 EVV, J wp 35396 2025 Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent I r s.1 to 4 and with their consent, this r'vrit petition is being .aken up for disposal at the admission stagc. [n view of the : lture of relief sought for in this writ petition, iss:rance of rotice to the unofficial respiondents is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would s'-l rmit that, the father of the petitioners, by name Resu Narsiml't r Reddy, was the Protected Tenant ol the aforesaid land by virtu : of the order in Case No.84l16544 178, dated 21.11.1981 1> rssed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderrr rad and the father of the petitioners died on 03.12.2022 and a ier the death of their father, the petitioners have succeeded tr, the protected tenalt rights over the subject land. Learned cc unsel for the petitioners u'ould further submit that, after the leath of their father, the petitioners have approached responder t No.5 with a request to mutate their names in the revenu: records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks e.r d title deeds and when their request was not considered by rer; rondent No.5, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit urde ' ).S.No.382 of 2006 to declare them as legal heirs of the said Il ,su Narsimha Reddy and the said suit was decreed on 15.O6.'.ll

06. Learrred ) a/ 3 EV\" J Wp_35396 2025 counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, after the said suit w,as decreed, the petitioners made a number of representations to respondent No.5, latest one being 16. 10.2O20 seeking for mutation of their names in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. lrarned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, respondent Nos.6 to 12, who are not having any right or title, have colluded with the local revenue authorities and got recorded their names in respect of the subject iand. Taking advantage of recording their names in the revenue records, respondent Nos.6 to 12 are now interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land. Hencc, this writ petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that, as per Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, t97l (for short "the ROR Act, 1,97 L"), the person, who acquires rights, shall intimate in writing with regard to acquisition of such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, everar if the Tahsildar has not mutated the names of the 4 EVV, J wp 35396 -202s petitioners and not issued the pattadar passbo,) rs within the time stipulated, the petitioners have a right to lpproach the revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR A: , 1971.

5. Admittedly, in this case, though it is state I that the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed in the year 2lO6, no such steps have been taken by the petitioners for mur ation of their names, issuance of pattadar passbooks ancl :onsequential amendment of the entries in the revenue records i r consonance with Section 4 ol the ROR Act, 1971

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deaiing rith the issue relating to undue delay and laches in the cas( of State of Maharashtra as. Digambdrr, observed as under "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maha;as Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Ba1lvant Re J Service, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (1) SCR 808], re.t said principle of laches or undue delay as L applied in exercise of power by the High Cr futicle 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, whe Court in exercise of its porver vested under Ar,j the Constitution issues a direction, order rr granting relief to a person including a citiz. considering his disentitlement for such reliel < ]tra State rlar Motor :rated the Lat which rrt under :e a High :\e 226 of writ for r without ue to his r.r..i' 1 ltsssy suee r scn /.) -/ ) E\,ry, J \Yp_15196 _202i blame-worthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondent here) was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principlc of laches or undue delay adverted to above, disentitled the writ petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution from the High Court, particularly, when virtually no attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or laches. The High Court, therefore, was rvhoily wrong in gralting relief in relation to inquiring into the allegation and granting compensation for his land alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road works in the year 197 L-72... .. . ."

7. In the case of Mrinomg Maitg as. Chhanda Koleg and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court time ald again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionar5z powers under Aricle 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinarlr powers if la-xity on the part of tlle 'z lzoz+; + sca soo { ( a 6 EVV, J Wp 35396 -2025 applicant to assert his right has allowed l.L r action to drilt away arld attempts are made srr cause of rsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action"

8. In the instant case, it is evicient that the 1 etitioners are not diligent in pursuing the matter by maki : 3 application seeking for mutation and consequential issuan: r of pattadar pass books when the ROR Act, 1971 was in for,; ,. Admitredly, the ROR Act, 197\ has been repealed anc replaced by Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Bot <s Act, 2020, which is also repealed and replaced by Telangane Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. Therefore. th : rvrit petition filecl by the petitioners is misconceived and the siL ae is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. {or,r,ever, it is need less to mention that the petitioners are at i rerlr to work out the remedies before the appropriate forurL i r accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendirr5; shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.I ,. PONNA KRISHNA ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR . l-r \-i =- SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCl 2. I*S CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the Str te of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies \ To {P HIGH COURT DATI :.D:2011112025 t '-' -1 -'-",:.. 1 : ) i-,].r - o i 2? f-c zffi //u '., i- :/ ,_l ORDER WP.No. 15396 of 2025 DISMISSING THE \AI ?IT PETITION WIT{OUT COSTS 6