HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Saturday dismissed a plea on grounds of long delay —nearly four years — in filing the petition. The petitioner had sought to challenge an order issued in 2014. The Court termed the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in challenging an order as fatal.
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar was dismissing the petition filed by Mir Khader Ali Khan and five others of the city, seeking directions to the authorities concerned to order for a detailed enquiry basing on the sethuwar and include names of the petitioners as pattedars and possessors of the landed properties covered by survey numbers 1 to 101 admeasuring about 1,351 acres situated at Bahadurguda village in Shamshabad mandal of Ranga Reddy district.
The petitioners’ counsel sought the court to declare the action of Shamshabad Tahsildar in issuing proceedings dated June 24, 2014, rejecting the petitioners’ claim in respect to the subject property as illegal. Contending that the decision of the tahsildar was against the provisions of Record of Rights Act, 1971 and Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the counsel urged the court to set aside the same and to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the judge found that the order impugned in the present case was dated June 24, 2014 and was passed by the Tahsildar in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, which was appealable under Section 5 (5) thereof within 30 days. The petitioners were aware of passing of the proceedings by the Tahsildar, the judge noted, adding that the petitioners had not even offered an excuse in the affidavit, explaining the long delay in filing the present case.
Therefore, the petition was merely speculative and constitutes a belated attempt on part of the petitioners to challenge the said order for some extraneous reasons, the judge said. He dismissed the petition, saying that the delay and laches on the petitioners’ part in taking steps to assail the said order, be it before the appellate authority or before the high court, was fatal.