Vadla Gannoju Krishnaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 423 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 423 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

Vadla Gannoju Krishnaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 3 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



                  WRIT APPEAL No.309 of 2020

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated

30.12.2019    passed        by    the     learned        Single      Judge   in

W.P.No.28922 of 2019.

     The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was

preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners stating that they

are protected tenants in respect of the land admeasuring

Acs.11.00 in Survey No.1435/1 and Acs.8.00 in Survey

No.1438/1    of    Amangal         Village.          The     appellants/writ

petitioners further stated that their names were deleted from

the revenue records. The undisputed facts of the case make

it very clear that the appellants/writ petitioners, who were

protected tenants, failed to pay the rents in spite of issuance

of various notices and finally an order was passed by the

Mandal Revenue Officer on 21.03.1990 in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,

terminating the tenancy. The appellant No.1/writ petitioner

No.1 and four others preferred an appeal before the Joint

Collector in Appeal Case No.B7/18/92 and the appeal was

dismissed in May, 1994. The appellants/writ petitioners did

nothing after dismissal of the said appeal and after a lapse of
                                      2




about 25 years, they preferred a writ petition. A prayer was

also made that the respondents in the writ petition are

interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellants/writ

petitioners and they should be restrained from interfering

with the peaceful possession of the appellants/writ

petitioners. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition on the ground that it was preferred after 25 years.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge are reproduced as under:-

"4. Having regard to the fact that there is delay of 25 years in coming to this Court, challenging the decision of the appellate authority under the Act, the Court requested the learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the reasons for filing the Writ Petition after such a long lapse of time. Learned counsel sought to contend that the petitioners were not aware of the dismissal of the appeal and on the contrary, they were informed that the appeal was allowed. He submits that since the possession of the petitioners was not disturbed, no further steps were taken by them. He further submits that the right of a tenant is a valuable right and no such right can be taken away without following due process and action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in terminating the tenancy is contrary to the law laid down by the Court in Rama Rao v. Rachappa and others (1988 (2) ALT 679) and therefore the Writ Petition may be entertained.

5. From the reading of the averments filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is no specific explanation or reasons for not filing the Writ Petition within the reasonable time and 25 years delay cannot be said as a reasonable time challenging the order of the Joint Collector passed in May, 1994. From the reading of the Joint Collector's order, it is apparent that after following due procedure and resorting to various modes of service of notice, the Mandal Revenue Officer has taken the decision accepting the plea of the land

owner to vacate the tenants from the subject land and the said decision is affirmed by the appellate authority."

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the tenancy

was terminated in the year 1990, the appeal preferred in the

matter was dismissed in the year 1994 and after lapse of

about 25 years, the writ petition was preferred. In the writ

petition also an injunction was sought restraining the

respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of

the appellants/writ petitioners.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned

Single Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the writ

petition on the ground of delay and laches. This Court does

not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.