The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by four individuals seeking correction of revenue records and recognition of pattadar rights over 3.14 acres of land in Gandamguda village, Rangareddy district. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty held that the petitioners were attempting to revive a decades-old dispute after an unexplained delay of nearly 68 years.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, including an advocate, a businessman, and two farmers, claimed that their ancestors were granted pattadar rights over the land in survey No. 22 of Gandipet mandal by the then district collector, Atraf Balda, in March 1950. They argued that although a declaratory order was passed in their favor, only a portion of the land was recorded in the Faisal Patti of 1954, leaving the disputed extent unaccounted for. The petitioners sought mutation of the 3.14 acres, alleging it was wrongly classified as ‘poramboke sarkari’ land.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners contended that repeated representations to authorities for correction of records were ignored. They alleged that revenue officials entered the land with a JCB and damaged it while asserting government ownership. Relying on earlier proceedings, including the dismissal of a land grabbing case initiated by the government, they argued that their possession had been recognized.
Government's Opposition
The government opposed the plea, maintaining that survey and settlement records from 1954-55 onwards consistently described the land as government poramboke sarkari land. The government counsel argued, “Neither the petitioners nor their ancestors were ever recorded as pattadars in respect of the disputed land, and no documentary evidence establishing title or possession was produced.” The state further contended that the special court’s finding that the petitioners were not land grabbers could not be construed as a declaration of title.
Court's Observations
Agreeing with the government’s objections, the court noted that the petitioners approached authorities only through representations made from 2011 onwards, despite claiming rights originating from proceedings in 1950. “As such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone,” the court held.
The judge observed, “The petitioners, having approached the authorities after more than six decades, failed to give cogent and plausible reasons for filing representations after a lapse of 68 years, and it is evident from the facts that petitioners are trying to revive a stale claim and unsettle the settled things after a long period of time.”
Final Decision
Holding that entertaining such a belated claim would disturb matters that had long attained finality, the court declined to examine the merits of the title dispute and dismissed the petition.
