M.Lalaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3255 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3255 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

M.Lalaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.8419 of 2025
ORDER:

It is stated that the father of the petitioner by name

M.Paramaiah was the owner and possessor of the land

admeasuring Acs.7.35 guntas in Sy.No.71, situated at

Madugula Chettempally Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District.

It is further stated that after the death of his father, the

petitioner had succeeded to the said property but he has been

residing at Serilingampally due to his employment. It is further

stated that taking advantage of the petitioner's absence in the

village, some illegal entries were entered for the subject land. It

is further stated that having come to know about the entries

being made illegally in the revenue records, the petitioner filed

an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Telangana Rights in Land

and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act,

1971") before respondent No.3. By an order, dated 12.06.2008

in File No.C/891/06, respondent No.3 set aside the orders

passed by respondent No.4 in respect of the subject land and

directed respondent No.4 to carry out necessary corrections.

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the orders

passed by the appellate authority-respondent No.3, respondent

No.4 has not implemented the said order by correcting the

CVBR, J Wp_8419_2025

entries in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was not

issued in his favour.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and

with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the

admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in

this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial

respondents is dispensed with.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has

submitted that the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced by

the Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020

(for short "the Act 9 of 2020") and there is no such power now to

implement the orders being passed under the provisions of the

ROR Act, 1971. Besides that the petitioner, after 17 years of the

order, is seeking implementation of the said order for correction

of entries in the revenue records.

4. It is settled principle of law that the parties are not

entitled to seek correction of revenue entries after a long lapse of

time and the parties have to approach the authorities within a

CVBR, J Wp_8419_2025

reasonable period, though the statute has not prescribed any

time limit.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue

relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Digambar 1, observed as under:-

"A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (1) SCR 808], reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delay as that which applied in exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting relief to a person including a citizen without considering his disentitlement for such relief due to his 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.

XXX

Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondent here) was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle 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 wholly wrong in granting relief in relation to inquiring into the allegation and

(1995) SUPP 1 SCR

CVBR, J Wp_8419_2025

granting compensation for his land alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road works in the year 1971-72......."

6. In the case of Mrinomy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and

others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"This Court time and 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 discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part 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"

7. In the instant case, the appeal filed by the petitioner was

decided on 12.06.2008 and now the petitioner seeks

implementation of the said order. The petitioner has not taken

any steps for implementation of the said order either under the

program called 'land records updation program' introduced by

the Government or during the operation of the ROR Act, 1971.

Therefore, if the petitioner is having any absolute right over the

subject property and since third parties have been in possession

of the subject lands, he is not entitled for issuance of a writ of

mandamus at this belated stage in view of the judgments of the

Apex Court referred to above. Hence, the writ petition filed is

(2024) 4 SCR 506