Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1527 (TS)

Thokata Suresh v. State of Telangana

2025-11-17

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V. VENUGOPAL, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue any order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in appeal including order, dated 24.02.2018, Case No.F1/1828/2016 passed by respondent No.2 as well as File No.J/4080/1996, dated 06.09.1997 passed by respondent No.3 and to quash the same and consequently, allow the appeal filed before respondent No.2 to the extent as prayed for therein and to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the petitioner herein…” 2. Heard Sri Abhishek N, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, by name Thokata Nellamma, had acquired the land admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy.No.94 and Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.124, from her father-in-law, Thokatta Narsimha, who was the original inamdar of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the original inamdar- Thokatta Narsimha died on 22.02.1975 leaving behind his son Thokatta Sandaiah, the father of the petitioner herein as sole legal heir and after the death of T.Sandaiah on 17.08.1987, the mother of the petitioner by name Thokata Neelamma had succeeded to the said land but the name of Sandaiah had continued in the revenue records upto 1995- 1996 and thereafter, the name of the mother of the petitioner has appeared in the revenue records as possessor. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 30.07.2015, respondent No.5, along with others, without having any right or title whatsoever over the said land, when tried to dispossess the petitioner’s mother from the subject land, she was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.473 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, which was closed on 20.08.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the mother of the petitioner also filed O.S.No.693 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein IA.No.997/17 was filed seeking rejection of the plaint. The said I.A. was allowed and the suit was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed A.S.No.76 of 2020 and the same is pending before this Court. The said I.A. was allowed and the suit was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed A.S.No.76 of 2020 and the same is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the mother of the petitioner came to know through the written statement filed by respondent No.5 herein in O.S.No.473 of 2015 that, without any possession or record as on the date of vesting, she was granted O.R.C. vide ORC No.J/4080/1996, dated 04.09.1997 after collecting premium amount and later the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, had implemented the said O.R.C., vide proceedings No.B/7979/97, dated 11.09.1997. Immediately, the mother of the petitioner had filed appeal No.F1/1828/2016 before the Joint Collector, Malkajgiri- Medchal District, seeking to set aside the said O.R.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, as per the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act , 1955 (for short “the Act, 1955”), there are two crucial dates of vesting i.e., 20.07.1955 and 01.11.1973 and since 20.07.1955, the Inam lands are vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances and the State became the owner of all Inam lands and no one had any right to make any claim except occupation and cultivation and that 01.11.1973 is the vesting date decided for grant of Occupancy Rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, on the crucial dates, the grandfather of the petitioner, by name Thokata Narsimha, was in physical possession of the subject property and respondent No.5 was never in physical possession of the said property and as per the letter bearing No.A/6049/1996, dated 31.08.1996, the nature of the subject land is Mafi Inam land and that the said Thokata Narsimha was in possession on the crucial dates of vesting and vide Report in File No.J/2988/1992, dated 16.02.1992, Thokata Narsimha was recorded as possessor in the revenue records on crucial dates. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that respondent No.5, claiming that the petitioner, along with his mother, has sold the subject property in favour of her husband by name Pogula Ram Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- through unregistered sale deed, dated 25.06.1989 and basing on the said sale deed, she had obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC). Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed Appeal Case No.F1/1828 of 2016 before respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed Appeal Case No.F1/1828 of 2016 before respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that respondent No.5 is the wife of the purchaser and not Inamdar and the purchase was made after 1955 only and as on the crucial vested date, the grandfather of the petitioner was in possession of the subject land but, without considering the same and without conducting any enquiry, respondent No.3 had issued the ORC in favour of respondent No.5, which was erroneously confirmed by respondent No.3 vide order, dated 24.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the appeal was prosecuted by the mother of the petitioner till her death i.e., on 07.12.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner, after collecting all the documents, had filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 24.02.2018 passed in Appeal Case No.F1/1828/2016. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the mother of the appellant filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, challenging the ORC granted in favour of respondent No.5 herein in File No.J/4080/1996, dated 06.09.1997. He would further submit that respondent No.5, after the death of her husband, who was in possession of the subject land as on the date of vesting, had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division for regrant and who in turn having conducted enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 read with Section 10 of the Act, 1955 and having found that she was in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.94; Ac.0.136 guntas in Sy.No.124 and Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy.No.16, situated at Uppal Bhagayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, granted ORC in Form No.III, vide No.J/40801996, dated 06.09.1997 by collecting a sum of Rs.2,850/- towards premium. Thereafter, on the application made by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 had implemented the said ORC in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/7976/97, dated 11.09.1997. He would further submit that the said land was converted into plots and the same were disposed of to third parties. The bonafide purchasers of the plots have constructed residential houses and commercial establishments and they have been in possession of the same for the last several years and that there is no vacant land available. He would further submit that the said land was converted into plots and the same were disposed of to third parties. The bonafide purchasers of the plots have constructed residential houses and commercial establishments and they have been in possession of the same for the last several years and that there is no vacant land available. He would further submit that the appeal is filed in the year 2016 whereas the ORC granted in favour of respondent No.5 is in the year 1997 and after long lapse of 19 years, the petitioner’s mother filed the appeal and the writ petition is also filed seven years later i.e., after dismissal of the appeal and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. 6. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 had obtained ORC by misrepresenting the facts and creating false and fake unregistered documents in the names of some of the legal representatives of the original inamdars/possessors in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.94; Ac.0.13 guntas in Sy.No.124 and Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Uppal Bagayath Village and the same was challenged by filing the appeal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the ORC obtained by respondent No.5 herein came to the knowledge of the petitioner’s mother through the written statement filed in O.S.No.473 of 2015 by the defendants on 19.02.2016. Therefore, the mother of the petitioner filed the appeal challenging the said ORC within the period of limitation. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 had obtained ORC by misrepresenting the facts and as on the date of crucial dates, the grandfather of the petitioner was in physical possession of the said land and either respondent No.5 or her husband, who alleged to have purchased the subject land through unregistered sale deed, was never in possession of the same. 7. As seen from the impugned order, it is the case of respondent No.5 that her husband had purchased the subject land through unregistered sale deed, dated 25.06.1989 and after the death of her husband, she has succeeded to the said land. 7. As seen from the impugned order, it is the case of respondent No.5 that her husband had purchased the subject land through unregistered sale deed, dated 25.06.1989 and after the death of her husband, she has succeeded to the said land. It is the further case of respondent No.5 that the mother of the petitioner filed O.S.No.473 of 2015, which was closed on 20.08.2018 and the suit i.e., O.S.No.693 of 2017 filed by the petitioner and his mother seeking declaration of title was rejected vide I.A.No.997 of 2017, dated 23.09.2019. 8. Admittedly, ORC was granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1997 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy.No.94; A.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.124 of Uppal Bhagayath Village vide ORC No.J/4080/1997, dated 09.06.1997. Earlier to it, another ORC vide Ref.No.J/2933/92, dated 10.06.1992 was issued in the name of Gunde Krishna and others in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.94 and 124 and respondent No.5 herein and the said Gunde Krishna have jointly obtained layout for total extent of Acs.2.01 guntas covered by both the said ORCs, converted the same into plots and sold to individual plot holders. 9. It is settled principle of law that the parties are not entitled to seek correction of revenue entries after a long lapse of time and the parties have to approach the authorities within a reasonable time. Even if Statute does not prescribe any specific time limit, the limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the LIMITATION ACT would apply to all cases, more particularly in cases where relief is sought for declaration of property rights. 10. 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. [ 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…….” 11. 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” 12. In the instant case, admittedly, the ORC was granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1997, thereafter, the layout was granted and the said land was converted into plots and sold to individual plot owners. In the instant case, admittedly, the ORC was granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1997, thereafter, the layout was granted and the said land was converted into plots and sold to individual plot owners. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 confers right to prefer appeal by an aggrieved person against the decision of the competent authority in granting ORC under Section 10 of the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 prescribes 30 days time to prefer such appeal from the date of decision. Even assuming for a moment that the mother of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the ORC obtained by respondent No.5 on 12.09.2016 through the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.473 of 2015, she ought to have filed the appeal within 30 days from that date. But the mother of the petitioner filed an appeal after long lapse of 19 years of granting ORC. Apart from that, the writ petition is also filed after seven years of dismissal of the appeal by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that either the petitioner or his mother, are not diligent in pursuing the matter. Hence, this writ petition filed and framed is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.