Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
M. Suryanarayana S/o Late Veera Venkaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 35371 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Telangana State Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 - Land - Possession - Revenue records and pattadar pass books - Petitioners submit that they are owners of land to an extent of Ac. 3-05 gts in Sy. No. 1392/AA and Ac. 3.06 gts in Sy. No. 1392/A, situated at Nagupalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and their names were mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass books were issued in their favour - They further submit that respondent No. 6, some officials started interfering with their possession on ground that earlier LTR proceedings were initiated against brother of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner No. 2 for entire land and an order of eviction was passed in LTR case No. 371/2005/DMPT dated which was confirmed in C.M.A. No. 59/2008, dated - In fact, father of petitioner No. 2 died and petitioners are not aware of above said orders. - That they made application under RTI Act and obtained copies of orders in C.M.A. No. 59/2008, dated from office of respondent No. 3 - They further submit that petitioners are in possession of subject property and late Koteshwara Rao also had no knowledge about order passed by respondent No. 3 - Whether petitioners are entitled to maintain writ petition, which is instituted after more than 13 years, challenging the impugned order dated 20.06.2009? Whether petitioners are entitled to any relief as claimed for in writ petition? - It is pertinent to mention here, that during the life time of father of petitioner No. 2 has not taken any steps to question orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and after his death petitioners filed present writ petition after lapse of more than 13 years and they stated that they are not aware of orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also same are not binding upon them, is not acceptable under law.
Findings of the Court:
Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon above judgments viz. (i) Kola Maha Laxmi, contending that impugned orders passed by respondent No. 3 are hit by principles of res-judicata and (ii) Gaddam Narsa Reddy contending that sada sale deed dated 05.05.1961 does not require registration - Court is not going into merits of the case to decide the above said aspects, on the sole ground that petitioners have filed writ petition questioning order dated 20.06.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 after lapse of more than 13 years without explaining satisfactory reasons - Having regard to view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, though there is no prescribed time limit for filing writ petition, parties have to approach Court within a reasonable time, and in absence of satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay, parties are not entitled to seek equity jurisdiction as enshrined under Article 226 of Constitution of India - For reasons mentioned hereinabove, petitioners have filed the present writ petition before Court on 09.2022 questioning impugned order dated passed by respondent No. 3 after lapse of more than 13 years and they failed to explain inordinate delay and the same is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and latches.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6and their subordinates in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands i.e. land admeasuring Ac. 3-05 gts in Sy. No. 1392/AA of petitioner No. 1 and land admeasuring Ac. 3.06 gts in Sy. No. 1392/A situated at Nagupalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District of petitioner No. 2 without issuing notice and without following due process of law under the guise of orders of LTR case No. 371/2005/DMPT dated 14.09.2007 as confirmed in C.M.A. No. 59/2008, dated 20.06.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said orders and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land except in due course of law.
2. Heard Sri Saket, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Smt. Vasudha Nagaraju, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.
3. Brief facts of the present writ petition are as under:
3.2 That they made application under RTI Act and obtained the copies of the orders in C.M.A. No. 59/2008, dated 20.06.2009 from the office of the respondent No. 3 on 22.08.2022. They further submit that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property and late Koteshwara Rao also had no knowledge about the order passed by respondent No. 3.
3.3 It is further submitted that respondents have not followed the procedure for execution of eviction order as per the provisions of Telangana State Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 R/w Regulation Act 1 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations” for brevity) and the ejectment order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 14.09.2007 which was confirmed in C.M.A. No. 59/2008, dated 20.06.2009 by the respondent No. 3 are not binding upon them.
3.4 They further submit that in the year 1974, similar proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner No. 2 vide LTR No. 1096/1974 and the same was dropped on 12.02.1975. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is hit by the principles of res-judicata and the respondent No. 7 is not entitled to seek enforcement of the impugned orders after lapse of 15 years.
4. Respondent No. 6 filed counter stating that the name of father of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as ‘enjoyer’ in the year 1980-81 pahani. Later, the names of petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 were recorded in the ‘enjoyer’ column for the year 1981-1982 pahani, both became pattadars from the year 1997-1998 and the transaction took place after the “Regulations” came into effect only and therefore, it is a clear violation of the Regulations.
4.1 He further submits that respondent No. 4 initiated the proceedings vide LTR case No. 371/2005/DMPT and after following the due procedure under law passed ejectment orders on 14.09.2007. Against the same father of the petitioner No. 2 namely M. Koteswar
Point of Law : Principles of res judicata or a principle analogous thereto shall be applied with caution and circumspection in dealing with a case arising under Regulation meant for protection of tri....
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
when the fraud is alleged the same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering sufficient cause regarding delays in petition filings and distinguished between dismissal and disposal of cases, asserting review jurisdiction must b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive proof of ownership in land disputes, the limitations of the writ court in resolving boundary disputes, and the signi....
Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
