Smt. Patlannagari Suguna Alias ... vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 350 Tel

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



                    WRIT APPEAL No.911 of 2019

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


         The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

31.07.2019        passed        by    the     learned        Single      Judge    in

W.P.No.13658 of 2019.

         The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.5 - the Survey of India, Staff Co-operative

Housing Society Limited, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, has

sold a house plot bearing No.329 admeasuring 300 square

yards in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner and a sale

deed was executed on 03.09.1982. The sale deed was

cancelled on 31.08.1996 and the writ petition was preferred

challenging the cancellation, only in the year 2019. The

learned Single Judge, as it was challenged after a lapse of

about 22 years, has dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has

argued before this Court that the writ petition is maintainable

in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Tota

Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. The

learned Single Judge has taken care of the aforesaid

judgment. However, the fact remains that the cancellation of

the sale deed was done in the year 1996 and the

1 (2010) 15 SCC 207

appellant/writ petitioner has approached this Court after

lapse of about 22 years and therefore, the writ petition was

rightly dismissed 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.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,

liberty is granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to avail the

other remedies available under the law.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

31.01.2022 vs