Point of law: inordinate delay and laches in prosecuting their grievance disentitles them to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

2. According to petitioners, family of late Rajmohammed was assigned land to an extent of Ac. 5.26 guntas in Sy. No. 330, Sankireddypalli Village, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District. As late Rajmohammed was the eldest of four brothers, the land revenue records reflected his name. There was family partition and Ac. 5.26 guntas of land was divided equally among the four brothers. It was accordingly, implemented in the revenue records and the pattadar pass books and title deeds were also granted. According to petitioners, on 11.07.1960, late Rajmohammed executed private sale document selling his share to his remaining brothers and he left the village to live in Wanaparthy. Based on the said document, the land falling to the share of late Rajmohammed within the family was reallocated to other three brothers and accordingly, the same was implemented in the revenue records. Petitioners claim to be successors of the brothers of late Rajmohammed. Rajmohammed died in the year 1967.

3. The respondents 5 to 7, who are children of late Rajmohammed, submitted appeal before the Sub-Collector, Gadwal challenging the ROR entries reflecting the name of three brothers for the entire extent of land, including the land belonging to late Rajmohammed from the year 1978-79 onwards. On due consideration, the Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 20.03.1997. The respondents 5 to 7 filed Revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 without disclosing the rejection of appeal, raising the very same contentions. Late Moulana Saheb died on 16.04.1994 and he was succeeded by petitioners 3 and 4. In the Revision, neither Moulana Saheb nor his children were impleaded as respondents. The fathers of other petitioners also could not contest the Revision because of their health and the Revision was allowed by the Revisional Authority on 05.03.2005 and issued consequential directions. Petitioners were not aware of the orders passed by the Revisional Authority on 05.03.2005. They were surprised to know about said order when they made application requesting to issue new pattadar pass books. Thus, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order of Revisional Authority dated 05.03.2005.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Revisional order passed behind the back of petitioners and the order is not sustainable in law. He also contended that late Moulana Saheb was holding land from out of the share originally belonged to late Rajmohammed, whereas, Moulana Saheb was not a party before the Revisional Authority nor his successors were impleaded and on that ground alone the order gets vitiated. He further submitted that no order can be passed against a dead person. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh (dead) through Legal representatives and others Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (dead) by legal Representatives, (2017) 13 SCC 414 and the decision of Division Bench in J. Veeraiah and Others Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others, 2017 (4) ALT 507.

5. The issues for consideration are:

1. Whether the order of Revisional Authority is vitiated on the ground that the order was made against a dead person?

2. Whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches?

Issue No. 1:

6. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Joint Collector allowed the revision preferred by respondents 5 to 7 and another affecting dead person and his legal heirs and said order is a nullity.

7. First of all this principle is not attracted. Even otherwise, the LRs can waive the principle of nullity by their conduct.

8. In N. Jayaram Reddy and Another Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, 1979 (3) SCC 578, the Hon