THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2057 OF 2004 DATED 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN Syed Imtiazuddin And Others … Petitioners and The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2057 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The order dated 30.09.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.17536 of 2004 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the case, is subjected to challenge by the unsuccessful writ petitioners. Before the learned single Judge, the appellants/writ petitioners challenged the revisional order dated 23.03.2004 in proceedings No.F3/14/ROR/96-F3/543/96 on the file of the Joint Collector, Medak District, confirming the appellate order passed, in File No.I/3293/93 on 30.06.1994, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak, in turn confirming the proceedings dated 31.10.1992 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medak Mandal and District, in File No.E/2850/89, on the ground that the same were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The claim of the appellants before the learned single Judge was that their grandfather-Syed Sharfuddin Hussaini was the pattedar of the subject land which was purchased by him from the Government in the year 1338 Fasli (1928) and that they, along with Syed Moinuddin Hussaini, the eldest son of Syed Sharfuddin Hussaini, became the owners of the subject land after the demise of Syed Sharfuddin Hussaini in the year 1947. While so, Syed Moinuddin Hussaini unilaterally executed an agreement of sale in favour of the fourth respondent in the writ petition sometime in 1965 and the Mandal Revenue Officer by the primary order dated 31.10.1992 erroneously validated the said agreement of sale exercising powers under Section 5(A)(4) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’). The same was confirmed in appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act of 1971 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter in revision, by the Joint Collector, Medak. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that the appellants/writ petitioners had not filed any appeal against the dismissal of their succession petition on 09.08.1990 and that there was no evidence of their being in possession of the subject land at any point of time. The learned Judge was further influenced by the fact that the appellants/writ petitioners had kept quiet for over 27 years without claiming their alleged share in the subject land. The learned Judge also observed that part of the subject land was acquired for construction of the A.P. Residential School for Girls and the possession of the acquired land was taken from the fourth respondent. There was no evidence of the appellants/writ petitioners ever having filed any objection petition in respect of this acquisition. In the light of the delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners in putting forth their claim, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the litigation was purely speculative in nature and that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Act of 1971 did not warrant interference by this Court. In the light of the facts aforementioned, clearly evidencing that the appellants did not choose to put forth their claim with respect to their alleged share in the subject land for a long period stretching over in excess of two and a half decades and were mute spectators to the intervening acquisition proceedings, in which the fourth respondent alone participated - clearly evidencing his claim over the subject land, the appellants’ claim must necessarily fail on the ground of delay and laches. Given the apparent lack of diligence on their part, the appellants cannot seek to agitate their alleged entitlement over the subject land as heirs of Syed Sharfuddin Hussaini at this late stage and challenge the validation of the agreement of sale in favour of the fourth respondent. Without entering into the controversy as to whether the Revenue Authorities, acting under the Act of 1971, can validate an agreement of sale, we hold that the challenge by the appellants/writ petitioners in this regard must necessarily fail at the threshold on the ground of incurable delay and laches. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ SMT. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 16th November, 2009. VGSR/PGS