ORDER

It is stated that the petitioners are the inamdars of the land admeasuring Acs.3.21 guntas in Sy.No.7, situated at Batasingaram Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and issued passbook No.00879 in the year 1960 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further stated that considering the entries made in the pahani for the year 2015-2016, pattdar passbooks were issued to respondent Nos.5 to 11 and therefore, the petitioners have made a representation, dated 24.02.2025 seeking for correction of the entries in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities did not consider the same. 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 respondent Nos.5 to 11 is dispensed with.

3. As seen from the record, though it is stated that the petitioners have issued pattadar passbook No.00879 in the year 1960, they have not taken any steps for mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks either under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act, 1971”) or under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short “the Act 9 of 2020”).

4. 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, [(1995) SUPP 1 SCR], 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.

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

5. In the case of Mrinomy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, [(2024) 4 SCR 506], 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”

6. In the instant case, it is evi