HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6823 of 2025

ORDER

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.6.37 guntas in Sy.No.137, situated at Timmaipalli Village, Yalal Mandal, Vikarabad District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.774 of 1975, dated 07.07.1975. It is further submitted that he has made number of representations from the year, 1975 seeking for mutation of his name in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said representations, 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 No.5 is dispensed with.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that as per Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act, 1971”), the person, who acquires rights shall intimate in writing with regard to acquisition of such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that even if the Tahsildar has not mutated his name as per the time specified, the petitioner is having right to approach the revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971.

4. Admittedly, in this case though it is stated that the petitioner had purchased the property in the year 1975, no such steps have been taken for amendment of the entries in the revenue records in consonance with Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971.

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, [(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…….”

6. 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