Thokata Suresh v. State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-06. Thokata Suresh v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 34881 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD * MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL 'a r,WO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G,M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL NO: 309 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Daied 1711112025 in W. P. No. 34690 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: Thokata Suresh, S/o. Late Thokata Sandaiah, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agricultural Coolie, Rl/o. H. No. 2-5-42, Indiranagar, Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Road, Uppal, Medchal District. (L. R. of Late Thokata Neelamma) ... APPELLANT/VVRIT PETITIONER AND '1 . State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Division, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana. 2. The Joint Collector, lV'ledchal Malkajgiri District. 3. The RDO, l\rledchal Malkajgiri Division. 4. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 5. Smt. Pogula Sujatha, W/o.
Pogula Ram Reddy, Age. 66 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 2-7-4011, Uppal, Medchal - IMalkajgiri District. 6. Namala Srinivas, S/o. N. Jagannadham, Age. 56 years, Occ. pvt. Service, Rt/o. H. No. 2-12-66, Nehru Nagar, West [Vlaredpally, Secunderabad. 7. K. Srikanth, Sio. K. Pochaiah, Age. 39 years, Fyo. H. No. 1-1-48l23l5, Shrengeri Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapeta, Medchal Malkajgiri Diskict. 8. K. Ramchander, S/o. K. Narsaiah, Occ. Real estate, Ryo. Padmavati Welfare Association, Shanti Nagar, Uppal, Medchal District. 9- Smt. Mada Shyamala, Wo. M. Satyanarayana, Age. 68 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-1246, Nehru Nagar, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 'l0. Smt. P. Sangeetha, Wo. P. Venkatesh, Age. 47 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 4-7-15135, New Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 11. Smt. P. Rajeshwari, Wo. P. Satyam, Age. 43 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H. No. 4-7-15135, New Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.
'12. Smt. P. Veena,W/o. P. Ramu,Age40years,Occ'Housewife'Rl/o'H'No'4- '' 1-titzs, New Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. re. Sri. e. Ramulu Naik, S/o. Sri Dudya Naik, Age. 47 yearc, Occ Business, Fl/o' H. No. 2-153, Uppal Village, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Sri Dudya Naik, Age. 47 years, Occ Business, Fi/o' 14. Sri. B. Laxman Naik, S/o. ltrlalkajgiri District. H. No. 2- 153, Uppal Village, Medchal Age. 45 years, Occ Business, R/o 15. Sri. B. Prathap Naik, S/o. Sri Dudya Naik, H. No. 2-153, Uppal Village, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 53 years, Fl/o. H. No 1-7-503/A, 16. Smt. P. Lalitha, W/o. P. Venkat Reddy, Age. Bakaram, Musheerabad, HYderabad. 17. Sri. K. Anil Kumar, S/o. Sri Goverdhana Chary, Age. 50 years, Occ' Real Estate, Fl/o. H. No. 1-7-503/A, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 18. Sri. P. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Sri Yadaiah, Age. 47 years, Occ. Real Estate' N o. 2-2-551 1 13, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad. 19. Smt. P. Saraswathi Wo. P. Bagawanth Rao, Age.
47 yea. s, Occ Real Estate, Rl/o. H. No. 301, Pleasant House, Gayatri Nagar, Jeedimetla, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 20. Sri. V. Narsaiah, S/o Late Sri. Shankaraiah, Age. 84 years, Occ. Real Estate, Fl/o. H. No. 12-13-34, G. F. Street, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. 21. Sri. N. Prasad, S/o. Sri Kishan Rao, Fl/o. 3-8-12, RamanthapurVillage, Uppal, Medchal Ir/alkajgiri District. 22. Sri. K. Goverdhana Chary, S/o. Sri K. Shankaraiah Chary,Age. 77 years, Occ' Carpenter, Rl/o. H. No. 1-7-50311, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 23. Smi. B. Sathya Anasuya, W/o. Sri. Raja Ratnam, Age. 50 years, Occ. Real estate, Rl/o. H. No. 2-2-215113, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 24. Srr. DeekondaAmbadas, S/o. Sri D. Ramulu, Age. 43 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H. No. 11-3-357181A, Santhosh Nagar, Parsiguda, Secunderabad. 25. Sn. P. Giridhar Rao, S/o. Sri Laxman Rao Age. 60 years, Occ. Real estate, R:/o. Plot No. 101 , Sri Sai Apartments, A. V. V. Nagar, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 26. Smt.
ThokataNarsing Rao, S/o. Late Thokata Sandaiah, Age. 45 years, Occ agricultural coolie, RYo. H. No. 2-5-42, lndiranagar, Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Road, Uppal, Medchal District. (L. R. of Late Thokata Neelamma) ... RESPONDENTS l. A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of RDO's Order dt. 06. 09. 1997 in File No. 1/4080/1996 pending disposal of the above-captioned Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABHISHEK'N KATRAM' il;;;i i;; ih; R;;p""dent Nos'1 ro 4:'sRt MURALTDHAR REDDY GP FOR REVENUE Nos'S TO 26: Counsel for the Respondent - JUDGMENT The Court made the following: --... --...... -. = IN THE HIGH COT'RT F\cR THE STATE OF TEI,ANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CI{IEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 3O9 of 2026 DATE: 06. 04. 2o26 Between: Thokata Suresh ....
Appellant And State ol Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary and 25 others .... Respondents JUDGMENT Heard Sri N. Abhishek, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Muralidhar Redd5r Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. l to 4 and perused the record. 2, 'I'his writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the interim order dated 17 . I1. 2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 3469O of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by applying the settled principles relating to de lay and laches. Factual matrix (in brieff 3. Appellant claims that the subject iand, being agricultural iand admeasuring Ac. 0. 16 Gts in Sy. No. 94 and Ac. O. O2 Gts in Sy. No. 124, totaling Ac. O.
18 Gts, situated at Uppal Bagayath Village, Uppal \ Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as "the schedule property"), is an Inam land governed by the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'lnams ActJ. Originally, one Thokata Narsimha, the grandfather of the appellant, was the Inamdar, owner, and possessor of the schedule property and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof from the year 1955. Upon his demise on 22. 02. 1975, his son, Thokata Sandaiah (father of the appellant), succeeded to the property, and his name was accordingly entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor. 4. Subsequently, upon the death of Thokata Sandaiah on 17 . Oa. 1987 , his wife, Smt. Thokata Neelamma (mother of the appellant), succeeded to the schedule property.
Though the name of Thokata Sandaiah continued in the revenue records up to the year 1995-96, from the year 1996-97 onwards, the name of the appellant's mother came to be reflected in the revenue records, and she continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without interruption. 5. While matters stood thus, Sfr respondent, without any lawfui right, title, or possession over the schedule property, is alleged to have approached the competent authorit5r seeking grant of occupancy rights. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Oflicer (RDO), Ranga Reddy East Division, by proceedings in ORC No. J/aO8O/ 1996 dated t 06. 09. lgg7, granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of 5ft respondent in respect ol land admeasuring Ac-1. 17 Gts, comprising Ac. O. o6 Gts in Sy. No. 94, Ac. o,13 Gts in Sy. No. 124, and Ac. O. 38 Gts in Sy. No. 1 56, after collecting a premium amount of Rs. 2,85O/-.
Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Uppal, implemented the said ORC uide proceedings No. B/7979 dated 197 ll. Og. l997, and 5rr1 respondent was treated as the owner of the said extent. 6. Pursuant to the grant of ORC, 5d' respondent along with other ORC holders, namely Gunde Yadaiah and Gunde Krishna, obtained approval of a layout covering a total extent of Ac. 2. 01 Gts in Sy. Nos. 93, 94, 124 and 125. The said lands were converted into plots and alienated in favour of various third-party purchasers through registered sale deeds, thereafter, such purchasers have constructed residential houses and commercial establishments, obtained electricity connections, are paying property taxes to the Greater Hyderabad Municipai Corporation (GHMC), and have been in settled possession for severai years. 7. On 30. O7. 2O15, ',vhen 5h respondent and others attempted to dispossess the appellant's mother from the schedule property, she filed O. S. No.
473 ot 2015 belore the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit came to be closed on 20. 08. 2018. In the said proceedings, the application for interim inju,ction in I. A. No. 653 of 2or5 was dismissed on 04. 02. 2016 on the ground that the appellant,s mother failed to establish pima possession over facie the schedule property. 8. Thereafter, the appe ant,s mother instituted O. S. No. 693 of 2Ol7 before the II Additional Districr Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title. The plaint therein came to be rejected, and the matter is presently pending consideration in A. S. No. 76 of 2O20 before this Court. 9. Further, upon acquiring knowiedge of the grant of the ORC in favour of 5ff respondent through the written statement filed in O. S. No. 473 of 2015, the appellant,s mother preferred Appeal No.
F 1 / 1828 / 2016 before the Joint Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, under Section 24 of the Inams Act, assailing the ORC dated 06. 09. t997. 10. The Joint Coliector, upon consideration of the material on record, rival submissions, and reports of the Tahsildar, dismissed the appeal by order dated 24. O2. 2O18 and recorded the following findings as hereunder: Perused the records, exqmined tLrc cctse and heard the arguments qduanted bg th,e counsels. As per Reuenue Records the lands bearing Sg. No. 94 (Ac. l-Oggts. ), 124 (Ac. 1-37gts. ) & 156 (Ac. 1-36gts. ), situated. at Uppal Bagayath Village are classrfi. ed as Dasthegardan, Inqm Lands. TtLe case of the appetl@nt is tlmt sh. e has acquired_ Ac. O_16gts. , in Sg. No. 94 & O. O2gts. , tn 124 totat adm. , Ac. O-l8gts. , from her father_in1aw, Late Thokatta Nqrsimhrz uho was the Inamdar of the said lands. Thokatta Nc,rsimha died on 22-02-1975 leauing behind hts son Thokatta Sandaiah the htsbqnd of the oppeltant lrcrett.
Afier the death of T. Sand. aiah on 17. 08. 1987, the oppellant luts succeeded to the said land. s, but the name of Sqrrdaiah uas continuing rn Reuenue Records upto 1995-96. From 1996 onwqrds tlle name of tle appellant appeared in Reuenue Records as Pos-sessor. The gieua nce of the appellant is that the ORC No. J/4O8O/97, dated: 0906. 1997 hos been issued eroneouslg in the name of the R. 3 hereirr rvurtelg P. Sujatha it respect of lands beanng Sy. Nos. 94 (O. 06gts), 124 (0. 1:)g1s) & 156 (O. 38g1ts) totaL adnL, Ac. 1. 17qts without notrce to the q4)eLlant herein whrch inc[udes the land, of the appellant. She fi. led a suit as OS No. 473/15, atr tlrc Jite of the Dist_ Court, R. R. Dist. , for perpetual injuttcten ogainst thp R.. 3 Eartier to another ORC dde Ref. No_J/2933/92, dctted: 1O-O6-j992 runs issued irl the fto,me of Gunde Krishn<t & others bg the RDO, R. R. East Diuision irr respect of lands bearing SA. Nos. 94 & 124 to qn erte of Ac. 0. 24gts. The R.
3 hereitr ond the said Gunde Roo haue lointlg obtained a lagoul for a total exterut of Ac. 2. 01gts couered bg bot-h the said ORCs and cortuerted the Land into plots and sold to indiwdual plot hoLders. The oppellant h(]s allegecl thaL the R. 3 has obtained ORC in her name to an exlent of Ac. l. l7gts rzs rrterlioned aboue bg Jihng fake documents and in collusion Lutth some of tlrc Reuenue Off. ciats. Tlrc RDO, Malkajgii Diuision hrrs lssued another ORC in filc No. J/ 1692/ 13, date. d: l7. Ol. 2O1S in respect of part of sarrte lqnds in Sg. No. 94 & 124. The (rppellant has praged to set astde the ORC bearing No. J/4O8O/96, d. qted:06 09-1997 issued in the natne of lle R-3 allege. dlg based on fake documents ncludittg the latd of the pelilion without notice to hcr. The R. 3 in her cout er ho,s denied the aoerments made bg the appellant, statirg thet the oppellant is not the aggrieued partA as such she hos rro locus standi. In resped of ORC No.
J/ 1692/ 13, the R 3 ho;s stqted that she ltas purchased tlte land couered bg the soid ORC. An qppeal wo. s f. led agaist it in appeaL No. Fl/ 727/ 15 which was allouted bg the Joutt Collector, R R. Dist. , on . 31. O. ). 2O16 and remanded the matter bc. ck to the RDO. 'l'lte for fresh enqutril. respondetts theretn fited a wnt petition before the Hon'ble High Courl u,hrcrr is sttll pending for adjudication. The ptot olutrers ttl that cqse uellettLentlA opposed qgainst Smt T. Neelamma the appellati lterein, urtder the banner oJ padmavathi Colong Welfare Assocr@tion. The R. 3 ho. s defended bg the ORC issued bg the RDO, R. R. East Diuisiorr in fle No. J/4080/96, dated:O6 O9-19q7 and praged. ro dismiss fhe appeal being deuoid of merits. The R. 3 in her eddittotLal counter has rettetated llte facts and stated that her husband p. Ramreddy Late Sn duing his lifelime purchased tlrc tands claimed bg the appellant herein through unreetstered sale deed dated: 25. 06.
1989 for a total constderatrcn of Rs. 6O,OOO/ bul the seid sale deed uas not readily traceable at th. e time oJ fi. lirtg earLer counter. Because due to death of Ramreddy and tine gap ocatred, tlte mateial papers were scottered. Houeuer, sh. e could trace out the said document and f. led a copg of it. The R-3 has furlher stated thcLt basing on the said sale dee. d ctnd possession p of lote Ramreddg deuolued. to R. 3 herein, the RDO hes igtttLg grctnted tfe ORC in fle No. J/4O8O/96 tn her fauour. The R. 3 llr;. s furlher stqted that the Hon,bte lst Add. t. Jr. Civil Judge, R. R. Dist irr 1. A- No. 65tl/ 15, in O. S. No. 4Z3/ 15 has dismissed the prager of tlrc appellant injunction os the oppellant could not establish her for O'S' \ possession. Ttrc oppellant and her sons houe anotler suit as fiLed Dist. Judge, R'R Ds', deckting No. 633/ 17 in the court of the Hon'ble for I'A' petition tlam as co-ou,ners & title lr,tders- They houe also filed an No. 795/ 17 in O. S. No.
633/17 injunction and the same are pending for also implead petition beJore the Hon'bte Coutt. The ptot owners ttoue fited qnd in their counter theA haue uehementlll denied the auerments and claim the plots haue alreodg of the appetlant, as the plot ouners afier purchasing coftstructed pacca houses and residtng there. & respondents haue Duing the course of enquiry both the appellants their ctc. rm,s & counter clo,ims, replA to counter, u)itten orryments & filed arguments etc', lDith minute replg to utritlen arryments, additional utritten as detailed details relging upon citations High Courts & Supreme Court from cLaims' A criminal case o's under the head of their releuant bg the appellant and her sons in the CrI. SR. No. 1361/ 77 has also been filed Rqchakonda, Cyberabad court of the Hon'ble Metropo\itqn Mogistrate C<turt, (lgailst at L. B. Nagar, Hgderabad the R-3 & respondents ie', plot ouners u.
tho haue purchased plots in the above said lands qnd constructed pacca houses and no open land is lefi, out of the said' Sg Nos' TlLe said cose is also pending before the Hon'bte Courl- qnd state of alfairs I do not In the tight of aboue circunstances find the ORC issued bg any ualid grounds to interfere tltith the then RDO' 06 09'1997 of the R. R. East Diuision in No. J/4080/96, dated: in fauour fite 124 (0 13gts) & R. 3 herein in respect of Lands bearing Sg. Nos. 9a P'O6gts)' lJppal Bagagath Village nott't 156 (O. 38qts) totql adm. , Ac. l. t Tgts situated at Disl', as such tiac same is upheld' in Llppal Mandol of Medcha| Malkajgiri Tle ciuif sutt qs O. S. No. 693/ 17, bg the appetlant and her sons against fited for the respond.
ents is pending before the Hon'ble Dist' CourT' R'R Dist ' and titLe declaing the plaintiffs therein a-s sole and absolute co-ott)'i1e-rs propertll ie, Sg No'94 & 124 of UppaL hotders of tLrc suit schedule londs are BogqAAath Village, whereas the s<tnt'e subject matter oJ this ,pp. ii- ft*, tllere is a seious dispute of title inuolued in this appeol and tiis . ourt being a Quasi Judicial Court has no jurisdiction to resolue the title dispute. As such the parties are aduised to ouait orders of the Hon'ble Court R'R Dist In tte in O. 5. No. 693/ 17 pending before ttrc Hon'ble Ddst Court, ' result *rc zppeal is dismissed. of the appeilant's mother on 11. Subsequent to the demise collecting the relevant records' 07 . l2. 2}lg, the appellant, after petition before this Court challenging instituted the underlying writ as the appellate order dated the ORC dated O6. O9. 1 997 as well dated 17 'tl 24. O2. 2O1a.
The learned Single Judge, by order '2025 ' l dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches, observing hereunder 12. lrt the tnst0nt ca-se, admittedlg, the ORC was granted in fauour of respondettt No. 5 in the Aear 1997, thereafter, the lagout was granted and the said land tuas conuerled tnto plots qnd sold to indiuiduol plot ouners. Section 24 of the Act, 1995 confers rlght to prefer appeal bg an aggieued person against the deciston of the competent authoritA in granting ORC under Section 10 of the Act, 1995. Section 24 of the Act, 1995 prescibes 3O dags time to prefer such appeal from the date of dectsion. Even assuming for a moment that tluz rnother of the petittoner came to the knou. tledge of the ORC obtained bg respondent No. S on 12. 09. 2016 through the u. ,ritten statement filed bg the defendant in O. 5. No. 47. 3 of 2015, she ought to Lwue filed th,e oppeat within 30 dogs from that dote. But the mother of the petitioner fited an oppeal afr.
er long tapse of 19 Aears of gratlting ORC. Apart from that, the wnt petition is also filed afier seuen lJeors o/ <iismissal of the appeal bg the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of tte opinion that either the petitioner or his mother, are not dili. gent in pursuing the mqlTer- Hence, this writ petition filed and framed rc misconceiued qnd is lio. ble to be dismissed on the sole ground of delag and laches. 13- AccordingLg, this Wit Petition is dismissed. There shalL be no order as to cosls. 12. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present \ /rit appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order and has advanced submissions as under: i) That the learned Singie Judge erred in dismissing the underlying writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches, withour examining the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional validity of the ORC and the appellate order dated 24 . O2. 2O1a.
That the doctrine of delay and laches is not an absolute bar to t. he exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where the impugned action is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of al1 jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits ii) That the ORC in favour of 5h respondent was obtained by playing fraud upon the authorities, by way of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. The appellant,s mother never executed any sale deed in favour of 5rh respondent or her husband. The alleged unregistered sale deed dated 25. 06. 19g9, purportedly executed by the appellant,s mother and her minor sons, is stated Lo be a forged and fabricated document. iii) That the statutory appear before the Joint corector was preferred immediately upon the appellant,s mother acquiring knowledge of the oRC through the written statement filed in O. S. No. 473 of 2015.
Hence, the appeal was within limitation, reckoned from the date of knowledge. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that fraucl has no limitation, the appellant cannot be non-suited on thc ground of delay when the very foundation of the impugned action is alleged to be fraudulent. iu) That the proceedings before the Joint Coilector were diligently prosecuted by the appellant,s mother until her demise on 07. 12. 2019. Thereafter, the appellant undertook steps to trace and collect the relevant records, many of which were in the custody of official respondents. The delay in approaching this I Court is neither wilful nor deliberate, but attributable to circumstanccs beyond the control of the appellant. 'l'hat v) thc grant ()l ORC is vitiated by violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 5 ol the A. P. (T. A. ) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for short 'lnam RutesJ, which requires that t lre I namdar be put on notice and made a party to the proceedings.
ln the present case, no notice was issued to the appellant or h;s mother, who claim to be the Inamdar's :;uccessorsr thereby rendering the en[ire procecdings uoid ab ititio. 'lhat vi) the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, inctuding Article 137, are not strictly applicable to writ proceedings. The jurisdictron under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, and the High Court is empowered to entertain a writ petition cven aftcr lapse of time where the impugned action is without or vitiated by fraud, and rvhere refusal to interfere lurisdiction s,ould result in perpetuation of illegality. vii) That lhe appellant has a strong primo. facie case on merits. The rcvenue records, including the reports of the MRO and communications dated 31. 08. 1996 and 16. O2. 1992, clearly indicate that Thokata Narsimha was in possession of the schedule property on the crucial dates of vesting, namely 20 . O7 . 1955 and O I . 1 | .
197 3, whereas 5th respondent or her predecessor had no recorded possession. Therefore, the appellant's mother, as the iegal heir of the original Inamdar, is entitled to grant of ORC. viii) That substantial justice warrants adjudication of the dispute on merits rather than rejection on technical grounds. The appellalt seeks to protect his ancestral property from illegal encroachment and unlawful claims set up by 56 respondent and her transferees, and denial of hearing on merits would result in grave injustice. Submissions on behalf of respondent 14. Learned Government plcader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has supported the impugned order and has advanced his submissions as under: i) That the ORC was granted in favour of 5th respondent as early as in the year 1992. Under Section 24 of the Inams Act, an appeal is required to be hled within 3O days. Even assuming that the appellant's mother acquired knowledge in the year 2015 through the written statement in O. S. No.
473 of 2015, the appeal filed in 2016 suffers from gross delay of about 19 years from the date of grant of ORC and about an year from the date of alleged knowledge. That no application for condonation of delay was hled before the Joint Collector nor any satisfactory explanation offered. ii) That the writ petition challenging the appellate order dated 24. 02. 2018 was filed only in the year 2025, after an inordinate delay of nearly seven years. No satisfactory or plausible explanation has been offered for such delay. The plea of misplacement of records in counsel,s office is wholly untenable and cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such cxtraorclinary delay. ii1) That the appellant has an efhcacious aiternative remedy inasmuch as O. S. No. 69 3 of 2O7Z , frled by the appellant,s mother secking declaration of title, is pending consideration. The .
Join t Collector has rightly observed that compiicated questions rclating to title, fraud, and forgery cannot be adjudicated bv a quasi judicial authority and must be decided b-v a competent (livil Court upon appreciation of evidence. i") Tha[, ovcr the passage of nearly three decades, extensive third_ party rights have come into existence. The subject rands have been convcrted into a layout, plots have been soid to numerous bona fide purchasers, and permanent resrdential and commercial struotures have been constructed. The purchasers are in settled possession, paying property taxes, and have obtained eleclricit5r connections. It is also on record that no vacant land remains available. Any interference at this stage u'ould seriously prejudice the rights of numerous third parties, lvho are not before this Court.
v) That rhe appellant,s mother had herself applied for grant of ORC before the authorities in 2O14, which was rejected on the L2 ground that the land had already been converted into non-agricultural use and was covered by constructions and layouts, which has been suppressed by the appellant. vi) That the property having undergone substantial development over decades, and the appellant, having remained inactive for an inordinate period, cannot now be permitted to unsettle a long-settled state of affairs. 15. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the material on record. Consideration by this Court 16. It is pertinent to note that in the case on hand, [he ORC was granted on O6. O9. 1997. The statutory appeal under Section 24 of the Inams Act, was required to be hled within 30 days from the date of the order. The appellant's mother, however, filed the appeal only in the year 2016, i. e.
, after an inordinate lapse of approximately 19 years from the date of grant of the ORC. Even assuming that the appellant's mother acquired knowledge of the ORC only in the year 2015 through the writLen statement hled in O. S. No. 473 of 2015, the appeal filed in 2016 would still fall beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, no application seeking condonation of delay appears to have been hled before the Joint Collector. 17. It is trite that mere numbering or entertainment of an appeal cannot be construed as implied condonation of delay. The appellate order came to be passed on 24. 02. 2018. The writ petition assailing 1, in the year 2025, i. e.
, after a lapse of the Same vt,as instituted only is offered by the appeilant explanation seven years The approximately mother on 07 12'2019' he had to the demise of his that, subsequent and that certain administrative lhe relevant drlcuments to collec[ the engaged counsel' in the ofhce ol lapses occurred by the aforesaid exPlanation I Court is not 18. This Persuaded , I December mother occurred in I o[ the appellant's offered. The death It is to the year 2O25' filed only in wrlt petition was 2O19, whereas the of latitude for collection reasonable even after :r[fording be noted lhat grossly delay remains with counsel' the documents and consultation of the of case hles in the office The plea ol'misplacement unexplained. ground to condone a legally sustainable counsel cannot conslitute permitted to take cannot be delaY, as a titigant such inordinate of his counsel' or inadvertence the alleged negligence shelter behind that he and his mother have appcllant contends 19.
Furlher, lhe proceedings and through civil asserting their rights been continuously of the events as Hou'ever' careful examination statutory remedies' granted in 1997 and was that the ORC discussed above reveals a suit for injunction until 2015' when only remained unchallenged a declaration by a statutory appeal in 2o16 and was fiied, fo1lou'ed The writ petition assailing suit in 2017, both after nearly two decades only in 2O25' was instituted 24 order dated 'O2 '2018 the appellate afterafurtherclelayolaboutsevenyears,cumulativelyreflectinga the grant of the ORC' lapse of nearly 28 years from t4 20. It is relevant to note that the aforesaid sequence of events cannot be construed as a case of "continuous assertion of rights.. On the contrary, it discloses a pattern of belated recourse to legal remedies, mixed with long and unexplained delays of inaction. The institution of a civil suit in the year 20 15 does not explain the complete absence of any challenge between L997 arld 2O15.
Likewise, the lrling of a statutory appea-t in 2016 does not furnish any justihcation for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court only in Lhe year 2025. 21. It is to be noted that the principle "the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights" is of significance in the present case, as the appellant's mother was alive until 20 19 and had suflrcient opportunity to assail the appellate order dated 24. 02. 2018 belore this Court within a reasonable time, but no such steps were taken. Such conduct, in the opinion of this Court, falls short of the standard of diligence expected of a litigant invoking equitable jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the appellant or his predecessor were vigilant in prosecuting their rights; rather, the conduct reflects acquiescence and prolonged inaction. 22. Further, the appellant has relied upon the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that an order obtained by fraud can be challenged at any time.
While the said proposition is well settled, it is not absolute in the context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Even in cases alleging fraud, the litigant is required to act with reasonable diligence and approach the Court within a reasonable time' 23. Even assuming tllal the aileged fraud came to light in 2O 15' though the appeal was filed tn 2016, the writ petition challenging the appellate order dated 24-O2-2ola was instituted only in 2025' after an inordinate delay of about seven years, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Further, the appellant has already availed an alternative remedy bf instituting o'S'No'693 of 2ol7 ' wherein the allegations of fraud and forgery can be appropriately adjudicated. The Civil Court, being competent lo examine disputed questions of fact, is the proper forum, and the Joint Coliector has rightly declined to adjuciicate such issues in summary proceedings' 24.
In the present case, one o[ the most significant factors is the creation of substantial t-hird-party rights over the intervening decades' Pursuant to the ORC granted in 1997, the suLrject lands were 94' developed into a layout covering Sy Nos'93 124 and 125' ' admeasuring Ac. 2. 01 Gts, thercafter subdivided into plots and alienatecl to numerous purchasers through registered sale deeds. Residentral and commercial constructions have since been raised, the layout has been regularized by GHMC and the occupants are in long- standing possession u'ith municipal and utility connections' Thus, though the appellant has impleaded more than 20 individuals, it is evident that several other purchasers are not before this Court. At this belated stage, unsettling such crystallized rights would resr. lt in manifest injustice, particularly in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. 25. In State of M. P. u,s. Nandlo,l Jaiswall, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under "24.
Now, tt is uell settled that the power of the HLgh Court to issue an appropriate wit under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution is dtscretionary and the High CourT in the exerctse of its discretion does not ordinailg ossist the tardA atd the. indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there ts inordinate delag on the part oJ tLE petitioner in filing a urit petition and such delag is n. ot satisfa. torilg explained, the High Court mag decline to interuene and grant relief in the exercise of its u,it jurisdtction. The ettohttion of this rule of taches or delag is premised upon a number of foctors. The High Court does not ordinailg pennit a belated resort to the ertraordinary remedg under the wit juisdiction because it is tikelg to cause confus[on and public inconuenience and bring in its trctin new injustices.
The rights of third parties may interuene and if the utrit jurisdiction is exerctsed on a Ltrtt petition afier unreasonabLe deLag, filed tt nag houe the elfect of inJlicting not onlA hardship and inconuentence but also injustice on thlrd parties. When the urit jurisdiction of the High Court is inuoked, unexptained delag coupled uith the creatlon of third partg rights n the meanuthile is an trnportant factor uthich alutags tueighs with the Htgh Court in dectding uthether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. we do not think it necessdry to burden thLS judgment with rekrence to uarious decistons of this court where it has been emphasized time and again that Luhere there is tnordtnate qnd unexplained delag and third partg ights are created in the tnteruening peiod, the High Coutt would decline to interfere, euet if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We mag onlg mention in the po. ssirtg tttto decisions of this court one in Ramana Dagaram shetty u.
International Airyort Authoritg of India ((1979) 3 SCC 489) ond the other in Asltok Kumar Mtshra u. Collector (1980) I SCC 180). ue mag point out that in R. D. Slrcttg's ca-se7, euen though the State action was h. eld to be unconstitutional as beitg uiolcttiue of Article 14 of the Constitutlon, thts Court reJused to grant relieJ to th-e petitioner on th. e ground thnt the urit petition had been fled bg the petitiorrcr more tlnn f. ue months afier the acceptance of the tender of the and during that period Jourth respondent the fourth respondent had instrred considerable expenditure, oggregating tle to about Rs. 1. 25 takhs, in making aftangements putlittg up for not restauront <tnd. the snack bar. Of aurse, this nlte of la. ches or delag is be a igid rute uhich can be cast in a stroit-jacket formukt, for there mag partg the coses where despite delaA and creation of third nghts High Court maA stilt in the exercise of its discretion interkre and grant reli{ to the petitioner.
But, such ca,ses tDllere the demand of justice is so (1986) 4 scc s66 ' t7 conpelling thal the High Courl would be incltned to interkre in spite of delag or creation of third portg nghts would bg their uery nature be feut and far betuteen. llltimatelg it would be a matter wtthin the discretion of tlrc court; ex hgpothest euery discretion must be exercised fairfu and justlg so as to pronlote ]tstice and not to defeat it-" 26. It is apposite to note that the appellant has instituted O. S. No. 693 of 2077 belorc the II Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said proceedings are pending, and A. S. No. 76 of 2O2O is also stated to be pending before this Court. The existence of such parallel civil proceedings is a relevant and weighty consideration.
The Joint Collector, in the appellate order, has observed that the dispute involves serious questions of title and that a quasi-judicial authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complex title disputes The parties trrere, therefore, relegated to the Civil Court. 27. It is well settlecl that where an alternative efhcacious remedy is available, the High Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ln Ro:dha Krisha:n Industries a. Sto:te of Himacha. l Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme I Court reiterated that the existence of alternative efficacious remedy is a significant factor governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the present case, the appellant has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and is actively pursuing the said remedy. In such circumstances, parallel invocation of writ jurisdiction is unwarranted.
The appellant is at iiberty to agitate all issues, including the validity of ' 1zoztl o scc 77 l the ORC and allegations of fraud,,in the pending civil proceedings, where comprehensive adjudication on facts ald law is permissible. Coaclusion 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justilied in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The challenge to the ORC granted in 1997, pursued through a statutory appeal after 19 years and a writ petition after a further delay of seven years, suffers from gross and unexplained delay. No infirmity is found in the exercise of discretion by the learned Singie Judge warranting interference in this appeal. 29. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 17. 1 I . 2025 in W. P. No. 34690 of 2O25 is hereby afhrmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs. SD/- A. V. S.
PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTTON OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI ABHISHEK. N, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies PSK. TKS w HIGH COURT DATED: 0610412026 i"lrs:n\t t e J rJ JUDGMENT 2026 t) 0Z uN hr x,ii WA. No. 309 of 2026 i// . ,. , /,, A r'. r k**,, pr{1 c*Przl DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS G*? \& k
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.