IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27826 & 27830 of 2008 (petitioner and respondents are same in both writ petitions) Between: E.Kannaiah S/o.Shankaraiah, 15-4-351 Osman Shahi Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District 177 Khairatabad Hyderabad 3 Revenue Divisional Officer East Division Ranga Reddy District 4 Mandal Revenue Officer(Tahsildar) Quthbullapur(M), Ranga Reddy District 5 Mari Laxmaiah S/o Late Malaiah 102 West Maredipally Secunderabad 6 Marri Bikshapathi S/o Anjaiah 3-77 Bagh Ameer Shanti Nagar Kukatpally Hyderabad 7 Marri Chittaiah S/o Malaiah (died) S/o. Suraram(V) Qutbullapur(M) R.R District 8 Marri Sarojini W/o Late Rajaiah 44/77 Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R Dist 9 Gouramma D/o Late Rajaiah Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 10 Kantamma D/o Late Rajaiah Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 11 Prameela W/o Rama Rao 3-7-44 Kakaguda Secunderabad-15 12 Marri Raju D/o Late Rajaiah H.No.44/77 Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 13 Marri Rekesh D/o Late Rajaiah H.No.44/77 Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 14 Lakshmi D/o Late Rajaiah Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 15 Marri Ashok D/o Late Rajaiah H.No.44/77 Indira Gandhi Nagar IDPL Colony R.R District 16 Marri Indrani W/o Late Eswaraiah 11-66 Sumitra Nagar Opp IDPL Colony R.R District 17 Smt Sukkamma W/o Kistaiah(died) Suram Quthubullapur(M) R.R District 18 M/s. Machine Tool Equipments Rep.by its Managing Partner Ch Sathi Reddy S/o. Ch.Pulla Reddy Regd Office Plot No.58/A S.V.Co Operative Industrial Estate Balanagar Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating the D5/480/2002 dt.27.4.2004 on the file of the by the joint Collector Ranga Reddy preferred against appeal File No.A2/2403/2000 dt.31-12-2001 on the file of the Revenue Divisional officer Ranga Reddy Dist preferred against the order passed in File No.A/4773/97 dt.8-8-1997 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer Quthbullapur(M) in respect of the lands an extent of Ac 18- 17 gutas of land in Sy No.64,65,69,86,87,88,89,99,100 101,102,and 179 situated at Suraram(V) Qutubullapur(M) Ranga Reddy District and same may be set aside by declaring the as arbitrary illegal and unjust and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice us 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently may be pleased to direct the respondent 1to 4 to issue pattadar pass books to the petitioner. WRIT PETITION No.27830 (petitioners and respondents are same) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating the D5/481/2002 dt. 27.4.2004 on the file of the by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy preferred against appeal File No. A2/3786/2001, dt. 31.12.2001 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy Dist. preferred against the Order passed in File No.A/392/96, dt. 31.7.1997 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur Mandal in respect of the lands an extent of Ac. 18.17 gutas of land in Survey No. 64, 65, 69, 86, 87, 88, 89, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 179 situated at Suraram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and same may be set aside by declaring as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice us 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently may be pleased to direct the Respondent 1 to 4 to issue Pattadar Pass Books to the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 18: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.27826 and 27830 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed challenging common order dated 27.4.2004 of second respondent, namely, Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case Nos.D5/480/2002 and D5/481/2002. By impugned order second respondent while dismissing two revision petitions filed by petitioner under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity), confirmed order dated 31.12.2001 of third respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer (East), Ranga Reddy District (RDO). Elaborate affidavits accompany writ petitions. It is however not necessary to refer to all the allegations, averments and statements therein. The brief fact of the matter necessary for in limine disposal of these two writ petitions is as follows. Petitioner purchased Acs.18.17 guntas of agricultural land comprised in survey Nos.64, 65, 69, 86 to 102 and 179 situated at Suraram village of Qutbullapur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 26.3.1983 from five persons belonging to ‘Marri’ family, namely, Rajaiah, Lakshmaiah (fifth respondent), Chukkamma, Bikshapathi (sixth respondent) and Indrani, who allegedly executed document through their General Power of Attorney, Marri Chittaiah. Respondents 7 to 17 are legal heirs of other vendors. After some persuasion, Tahsildar (fourth respondent) mutated name of petitioner in revenue records as well as record of rights as, “Khariddar (purchaser) and possessor”. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent filed a partition suit on the file of the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The same being O.S.No.85 of 1989 ended in a compromise decree dated 27.10.1995. In 1996, fifth respondent made an application to Tahsildar to delete name of petitioner and enter names of contesting respondents. By an order dated 08.8.1997, Tahsildar deleted name of petitioner and entered names of contesting respondents. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred two appeals under Section 5 (5) of the Act before RDO–one against deletion of his name and another against the order entering names of contesting respondents. These two appeals were dismissed on 31.12.2001. Petitioner then preferred two revision petitions under Section 9 of the Act before Joint Collector, which were dismissed by common order dated 27.4.2004. Learned Counsel for petitioner made elaborate submissions pointing out so-called irregularities and illegalities committed by original authority i.e., Tahsildar as well as revisional authority. To a query by the Court as to how writ petition can be entertained 4½ years after Joint Collector passed orders, learned Counsel has not made any submission. Further though writ petitions are filed challenging order dated 27.4.2004 passed by Joint Collector after lapse of more than 4½ years, there is no whisper in lengthy writ affidavits explaining reason for delay and laches. A perusal of affidavits would show that petitioner is aware of his legal rights. He was taking all necessary steps to defend his right in the suits filed by respondents, before revenue authorities and he himself also filed suit for injunction being O.S.No.720 of 2004 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Medchal. When injunction was refused, he also filed civil miscellaneous appeals unsuccessfully and thereafter civil revision petitions before this Court. When writ petitioner is aware of all the remedies in law and no explanation is forthcoming for delay and laches, writ petition would not lie. On this ground alone, this Court is not inclined to admit these two writ petitions. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 22, 2008. YS