ORDER: C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “For the reasons sated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 2 nd & 3 rd Respondents in not considering the online application ID no. 23T286500003369 dated 30-01-2025 for mutation of the land in survey no.80 admeasuring Acre 1-00 guntas situated at Yetham Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of ROR Act 2020 and violation of the Article 14 and 300-A Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the said facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 1.00 guntas in Survey No.80, situated at Yetham Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (for short, ‘the subject land’), having purchased the same through a registered sale Deed bearing Document No.126 of 1987 dated 22.01.1987. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made an online application dated 31.01.2025 vide Application ID No.23T286500003369 seeking for mutation and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds, but the 3rd respondent has not considered the same till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is of the year 1987. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended 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 contended 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. It is further contended 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 1987, 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. 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 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” 7. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the matter by making application seeking for mutation and consequential issuance of pattadar pass books when the ROR Act, 1971 was in force. Admittedly, the ROR Act, 1971 has been repealed and replaced with the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the ROR Act, 2020’) and further the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act 9 of 2020’) has been repealed and replaced with Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 2025’). At this belated stage, if the application submitted by the petitioner is considered, it would not only cause hardship to the persons who are enjoying the subject property but would also disturb the settled position over the said property. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 9. Granting liberty as such, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.