THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 358 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The writ appeal is filed against the Orders of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No. 21720 of 2008, dated 22.12.2008. Appellants herein are the petitioners, who filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge against the respondents herein, who are respondents before the learned Single Judge. For the purpose of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the learned Single Judge are referred hereinafter in this order. The Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not correcting the Panmaktha revenue records to remove the word of Pan Makhta Inam in respect of the agricultural land in S.No. 101 admeasuring 242-21 guntas in S.No. 104 admeasuring Ac.8-20 gts. totally admeasuring Ac.251-01 gs. (olds.No. 248) situated at Kompally village, Quthbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District renumbered as S.Nos. 25/1, 25/2 and 93 of Pet Basheerabad village, Quthbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to carry out the corrections in the revenue records by removing the word of “Pan Makhta Inam”. It is contended by the learned counsel before the learned Single Judge that the disputed lands were personal properties of Nizam, as per the Government Gazette of Sarkari Hali Nizam-Ul- Mulq, Ashif Jahee 1286 Hijree No.78 Vol. Hyderabad Deccan,II Amardad 1356 Fasli, 12th Ud-Razab-Ul-Murazeb 1356 HijreeNo.1356 Hijree No. 1356 No.341, 15h Zeer 1356 Fasli. A proclamation was also made under Section 5 of the Act, 1894 when the land was notified for construction of National Highway, Hyderabad to Nagpur. It is also further case of the petitioners that Nizam issued a firman in 1906 AD decreeing that the property shall remain under the supervision of Sarf-e-khas and the name of the pattedar Nawab Samsam-Ud-Dowla was deleted from the records of Kompally village; the lands were transferred to Pet Basheerbagh village records and were shown as Government lands. But, however, the proclamation was done. It is further contended that there were other cases pending before the revenue authorities for 7 acres and consistently the petitioners are making claim that the lands belong to them by inheritance and therefore the entries in Sethwar1350 Fasli as Pan Maktha inam is illegal. A representation was also made by the petitioners through their G.P.A. on 22.3.2007 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government of A.P. in Revenue Department to remove the entries as Pan Maktha inam in Sethwar 1350 Fasli from Column III and from Column III in Vasul Baki in 1347 Fasli as well as subsequent pahanies. After hearing learned counsel for parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, observing thus: “The petitioners themselves admit that petition schedule land has been subject matter of various cases before revenue authorities as well as Courts. This only presupposes that they are very much aware that all the entries in Sethwar, Vasul Baki and revenue records, the land is shown as Pan Maktha Inam. If that be so, nothing prevented the petitioners to file suits for declaration and clam the lands, when entries were made in 1350 Fasli (1940 A.D.), they chose to file an application before Government of Andhra Pradesh on 22.03.2007 after a period of 67 years. Even if petitioners had any right as they assert, such rights, by reason of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, get extinguished and cannot been forced in a Court of law. When a right cannot been forced in a Court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the Government to confer such right on petitioners by directing that the representation should be considered. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.” We are having reference to the case and also the averments made in the petition and having heard Mr. T. Lakshmikanth for C.M.R. Velu, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in dismissing the writ petition and the writ appeal is misconceived and appellants are trying to agitate their right after an abnormal delay of 67 years. In view of the foregoing discussions and also in view of the abnormal delay of 67 years, the writ appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 24.3.2009 CHV