Judgment : The petitioner states that he is the grand-son of one of the legal heirs of late Devi Singh S/o. Dhan Singh. According to him, an extent of 3000 sq. yards of land in T.S.No.5, Block ‘A’, Ward 201, Thotaguda Revenue Village, of present Nampally Mandal was owned by Devi Singh, that several families of weaker sections were living therein, and that they are paying meagre rents, till the year 1985. It is stated that the name of Devi Singh was reflected in the revenue/town survey records, in respect of the said land. The petitioner states that after the death of Devi Singh, his father, Sunder Singh, succeeded to the property, and on the death of his father, he succeeded to it. It is stated that the tenants over the land stopped payment of rents from 1985 onwards on the basis of pattas granted to them by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, the 2nd respondent herein, in that year. A notice requiring the respondents to pay compensation is said to have been issued immediately, and that in the recent past, extensive correspondence was undertaken in relation to the land. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent feigned ignorance as to the basis for issuance of patta certificates, and at one stage, stated that the pattas were issued on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Urban Development Wing of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is alleged that when the petitioner approached the Corporation, he was informed that though the proceedings were initiated at one stage, under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), they did not assume finality, and that the Corporation have no role to play in the grant of pattas over the land. With these and other related contentions, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in distributing patta certificates over the land, referred to above, to the weaker sections, without payment of compensation to him as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the prevailing market value. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. They deny the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, since it is filed 25 years, after the pattas are distributed. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. They deny the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, since it is filed 25 years, after the pattas are distributed. According to them, ‘Ambedkar Nagar’ that existed on the area was one of the oldest slums in Hyderabad, and taking note of the suggestion of the then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, proceedings dated 02-08-1985 were issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent, according permission for regularization of possession, and issuance of pattas by the 2ndrespondent. It is also stated that the acquisition of land and payment of compensation is within the jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, the 5th respondent, and that the relevant record is not available with them. No counter-affidavit is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 4th respondent. Sri V. Ramachander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grandfather of the petitioner held the land as absolute owner and it was given on lease to different individuals. According to him, the petitioner succeeded to it, and that there was no basis or justification for the 2nd respondent in granting pattas to the tenants. He further submits that the very fact that proceedings were started under the Act discloses that ownership under it was recognized. As regards plea of delay, taken by the respondents, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been claiming the rights continuously and that action of the respondents, being without jurisdiction, delay cannot defeat the rights. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, on the other hand, submit that the writ petition is barred by laches. They contend that there is nothing to indicate that the land belongs to the petitioner or his ancestors. It is also submitted by them that the land belongs to the Government and the persons, who residing thereon since a long time, were issued pattas. The petitioner asserts that a plot of 3,000 sq. yards of land was owned by his grant-father. In support of his contention, he has filed extract of the town survey land records, which was issued as recently as on 25-06-2010. The petitioner asserts that a plot of 3,000 sq. yards of land was owned by his grant-father. In support of his contention, he has filed extract of the town survey land records, which was issued as recently as on 25-06-2010. According to that, the land is shown as ‘Abadi’, and in column 20, which deals with the ‘name of the present enjoyer’, the name of the grand-father of the petitioner, viz., Devi Singh, S/o. Dhan Singh is mentioned. The extract does not contain any column pertaining to ownership. ‘Abadi’ connotes that the land is being used for residential purpose. In the ‘enjoyer column’, it is mentioned that huts are existing. Nowhere in the extract, there is an indication to the effect that the land belongs to the Government. On 12-07-1985, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, stating that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has instructed him to regularize the possession of the slum dwellers by issuing patta certificates, and in the process of verification, he came to know that there was a claim of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, on behalf of Sri Ramchanderji Temple over the land. He further mentioned that on realizing that the land does not belong to it, the Temple did not make any claim over the land. Ultimately, he requested the 1st respondent to reclassify the land and to accord permission to regularize the possession. Such permission was accorded by the 1st respondent, through proceedings dated 02-08-1985. Nowhere in the proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 have mentioned the fact that the land belongs to the Government. On receipt of notice got issued by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a memo dated 26-07-2010, to the Corporation. The response from the Municipal Corporation was indicated through a letter of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), dated 27-04-2010. It reads, “While enclosing the application of Sri Radhe Shyam (original) I request you to take necessary action at your end as there is no record of acquisition of land for issue of house site pattas in this office”. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 have concentrated more on the denial of title in the grand-father of the petitioner. However, they did not assert as to on what basis they treated it as Government land, and issued pattas. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 have concentrated more on the denial of title in the grand-father of the petitioner. However, they did not assert as to on what basis they treated it as Government land, and issued pattas. The fallacy of the respondents 1 and 2 is evident from the letter extracted above. It may be true that the land was occupied by poor persons. The question as to whether they were living as tenants, or as outright encroachers, would have assumed significance. In case, the land was held by a private individual, and it is occupied by large number of poor persons, the Act provides for issuance of notifications, and declaration of areas, as slums. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the land, referred to above, a preliminary notification was issued under that enactment, but the proceedings did not progress further. The pattas were granted, as desired by the then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and no attempt was made to verify whether the land is held anyone, as patta. As observed earlier, a claim was made on behalf of Sri Ramchanderji Temple, in respect of 8,617 sq yards of land, as regards which, pattas were granted. The ancestors of the petitioner were not put on notice. Since the record supports the contention of the petitioner, that it was the land, owned by his grand-father, and there is no corresponding material to the contrary, to suggest that it belongs to Government, the respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to pay the compensation. It may be true that there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner. The same is attributable to the death of the original owner, and lack of proper pursuit by his son. Time and again, this Court held that when the property of a private individual is taken over by the Government, the delay in pursuing the proceedings does not come in the way. At the most, the owner of the land can be denied the benefit of interest on the compensation for the concerned period. In the instant case, a further rider can be added to the effect that the compensation must be determined as per the rates, that were prevailing in the year 1985. At the most, the owner of the land can be denied the benefit of interest on the compensation for the concerned period. In the instant case, a further rider can be added to the effect that the compensation must be determined as per the rates, that were prevailing in the year 1985. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to arrange for payment of compensation for the land in question, calculated at the rates, that prevailed in the year 1985, within a period of three months from today. After calculation of the amount, the respondents 1 and 2 shall ascertain, as to whether there are any other legal representatives of Devi Singh, and whether there are claims for the compensation from others, including Sri Ramchanderji Temple in the locality; and pay the amount to the persons, or agencies, that are found to be entitled to receive the same. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.