[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Chindula Maisaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                 WRIT PETITION No.10271 of 2019

                         DATED: 07.04.2026

Between:

Chindula Maisaiah and others                        ...Petitioners

                                  AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.                   ...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in

issuing Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) and Pattadar

Passbooks to respondent Nos.5 to 14 without following due process

of law, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and also to declare the action of respondent

No.2 in passing the impugned proceedings No.A/117/2012, dated

04.02.2012, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to declare the

inaction of respondents in not considering the representation of the

petitioners dated 25.02.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.

LNA,J

2. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and

Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that

petitioners are Inamdars and possessors of land admeasuring

Acs.43-14 gts in Sy.Nos.1271, 1272 and 1273 of Irvin Village,

Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as

'subject lands'), having inherited the same from their ancestors; that

petitioners are landless poor and illiterates; that unofficial

respondents in collusion with the unofficial respondents obtained

ORC without knowledge of the Inamdars and due to which,

petitioners are deprived of their land and livelihood and as a result,

petitioners migrated to Hyderabad and to various places for

livelihood; that petitioners came to know about the impugned

proceedings dated 04.02.2012 and have submitted representation

dated 25.02.2019, to respondent No.2, however, there is no response

from respondent No.2; that petitioners have approached respondent

Nos.3 and 4 to cancel the ORCs' and Pattadar Passbooks granted in

favour of unofficial respondents and restore the possession of the

petitioners, but respondents did not take any action. Aggrieved by

the same, present writ petition is filed.

LNA,J

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that

petitioners are Inamdars and they have never sold their lands; that

petitioners migrated to Hyderabad and to various other places for

their livelihood; and that on coming to know about the impugned

proceedings dated 04.02.2012, petitioners approached respondents

and also submitted representation dated 25.02.2019; that since the

official respondents failed to take any action on the said

representation, petitioners are forced to approach this Court and

thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.7 by referring to the

Counter would submit that the subject lands are classified as

Balwatha Inam lands and the names of S.Lachaiah and B.Venkaiah

are recorded as Inamdars; that respondent No.2 by duly following the

procedure as prescribed under A.P.(TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 (for

short 'the Act, 1955'), has issued ORC to respondent Nos.5 to 13 and

others in respect of subject lands by duly issuing notices to all

interested persons vide proceedings No.K/1026/1990, dated

08.02.2000 and subsequently, their names were mutated in the

revenue records by respondent No.3 vide proceedings

No.A/117/2012, dated 04.02.2012. He further submitted that as per

Section 24 of the Act, 1955, appeal lies to the appellate authority LNA,J

against any Order or decision under Section 10 of the Act, 1955,

within a period of 30 days from the date of decision. In the present

case, ORCs' were issued on 08.02.2000, therefore, petitioners ought

to have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority within a

stipulated period under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, but petitioners

without availing the alternate remedy of filing an appeal, approached

this Court by way present writ petition and thus, writ petition is

misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further

submitted that ORCs' were issued in the year 2000 and after lapse of

about 20 years, petitioners approached this Court, therefore, writ

petition is summarily liable to be rejected, for latches and delay on

the part of petitioners and filing of writ petition clearly amounts to

abuse of process of law.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would

submit that respondent No.2 by duly following the procedure as

prescribed under the Act, 1955, has issued ORC to the unofficial

respondents and the same were implemented in the revenue records

by respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 04.02.2012 and the

petitioners ought to have availed alternative remedy of filing an

appeal under Section 24 of Act, 1955, and therefore, writ petition LNA,J

itself is misconceived and cannot be entertained, more so, after lapse

of about 20 years from the date of issuance of ORCs.

7. Perusal of the record discloses that respondent No.2 issued

ORCs in favour of unofficial respondents vide proceedings dated

08.02.2000 and their names were mutated in the revenue records

vide proceedings dated 04.02.2012 by respondent No.3 and

subsequently, Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds have been issued

in favour of unofficial respondents.

8. It is relevant to note that against the Order of the decision

under Section 10 of the Act, 1955, an appeal is provided under

Section 24 of the Act, 1955, before the appellate authority within a

period of 30 days from the date of decision. In the present case,

admittedly, the petitioners have not preferred any appeal within the

stipulated period, challenging the proceedings of respondent No.2

dated 08.02.2000. Further, though, petitioners contended that they

are in occupation and are cultivating the subject lands, no material

is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. It is also

relevant to note that petitioners themselves admitted that in view of

issuance of ORCs, they have migrated to Hyderabad and various

other places, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners are not

aware of the issuance of ORCs in favour of unofficial respondents.

LNA,J

9. It is pertinent to note that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in

PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and Others, 1held

as under:

"37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:

(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;

(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of Judicial procedure:

(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed: and

(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance,"

10. A careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment leads us to the

conclusion that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available,

the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the

domain of the Tribunals.

(2024) 6 SCC 579 LNA,J

11. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in City

And Industrial Development Corporation Vs.Dosu Aardeshir

Bhiwandiwala, 2 held as under:-

26. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing a writ. The principle is that the courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum.

27. The appellant in its reply opposing the admission of writ petition in clear and categorical terms pleaded that the writ petitioner has kept silent for more than 35 years and filed a belated writ petition. It was asserted that on account of inordinate delay and laches the writ petition suffers from legal infirmities and therefore is liable to be rejected in limine. The High Court did not record any finding whatsoever and ignored such a plea of far-reaching consequence.

28. As noticed hereinabove, the High Court obviously was impressed by the oral statement made during the course of the hearing of the writ petition and some vague and self-

defeating averments made in the affidavit filed by the appellant in the High Court.

29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances

(2009) 1 SCC 168 LNA,J

into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

(b) the petition reveals all material facts;

(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.

12. It is appropriate to refer to Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal 3, wherein it was

held as under:-

(1986) 4 SCC 566 LNA,J

"If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition, and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction."

13. It is also appropriate to refer to Judgment of this Court in

K.R.Shankar Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar

District, 4 wherein, it was held as under:-

"The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioner."

14. In the present case, the petitioner failed to avail alternate

efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Section 24 of Act, 1955

against proceedings dated 08.02.2000, before appellate authority.

Further, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ

petition after lapse of about 20 years from the date of proceedings

and it is evident from the facts of the case that petitioners are trying

to revive stale claim and unsettle the settled things after long period

of time.

15. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the

light of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as cited supra, as

2012 (5) ALD 781 LNA,J

there are clear laches and inordinate delay on the part of petitioners