HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.24741 of 1997 Dated day of June, 2007 Between: The District Collector, Chittoor .. Petitioner And Papugani Venkataswami Reddy, and two others .. Respondents O R D E R: This writ petition is instituted by the District Collector, Chittoor, to quash the order, dated 13.9.1994 passed by the 2nd respondent, by which the order, dated 23.3.1983 of the 3rd respondent was confirmed. The petitioner asserts that the land admeasuring Ac.40.00 cents in S.No.52 is classified as “Grazing Ground Poramboke” and another extent of land admeasuring Ac.18.70 cents in S.No.53 is classified as “Assessed Waste Dry” in Survey and Settlement Records, and the 1st respondent has no right whatsoever over the lands in question. Neither the 1st respondent nor his predecessors-in-title were pattadars and the pattas and cist receipts produced by him are not genuine but manipulated documents for the purpose of grabbing the vast extent of Ac.33.70 cents of land. When the 1st respondent filed a claim petition for grant of patta in respect of Ac.15.00 cents out of Ac.40.00 cents in S.No.52 and Ac.18.70 cents in S.No.53 situated in Kagati village, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District, the Settlement Officer rejected his claim by an order dated 15.6.1977. Now, the grievance of the petitioner-District Collector is that when the 1st respondent preferred a revision, the 3rd respondent-Director of Settlements, by his order, dated 23.3.1983, granted patta for the lands in S.Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring Ac.33.70 cents in favour of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, when the petitioner- District Collector preferred an appeal, the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, dismissed it confirming the order of the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has field counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and inter alia stated that since 1.4.1971 i.e. the date of purchase of the lands in question from his vendor, he has been in uninterrupted possession of the lands by raising Mango garden and enjoying the usufruct of it. The proposed 4th and 5th respondents have also filed a counter affidavit stating that though the writ petitioner-Government was informed about the death of the 1st respondent and his proposed legal representatives by a letter dated 9.6.2003, the Government has not taken proper steps to implead the legal representatives within a reasonable time. Even the application filed by the Government at a belated stage seeking impleadment of the legal representatives does not disclose tenable reasons for not bringing them on record within a reasonable time. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the petitioner, is that the documents produced by the 1st respondent before the authorities are bogus and not genuine and hence, the Settlement Officer rejected their claim, however, the other authorities erroneously held that the 1st respondent is entitled for the grant of ryotwari patta. Per contra, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that the writ petition is to be dismissed in limini on the ground of latches. According to him, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner passed the order on 13.9.1994, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1997 challenging his order i.e. after a lapse of three years and no reasons have been assigned for the abnormal delay. The second contention is that the 1st respondent died on 14.4.2003, and immediately thereafter, this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Government Pleader, but no steps have been taken by him, and now, when this Court has taken up the matter for hearing, the Government Pleader has filed a petition to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent on record. According to him, having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent is no more, no relief can be granted against the dead person, and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. His third contention is that this Court can only exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but cannot go into the factual aspect, which was decided by both the appellate and the revisional authorities, and hold that the documents produced by the 1st respondent are not genuine. Even, the 1st respondent produced all the relevant material before the lower Tribunals and as the Settlement Officer erred in not granting ryotwari patta, the appellate and the revisional authorities have gone into all those aspects and decided that the 1st respondent is entitled for ryotwari patta. Having regard to the controversy, this Court has looked into all the aspects. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue has drawn my attention to a judgment reported in Ashoke Kumar Majumdar Vs. United Bank of India & Others[1], wherein the High Court of Calcutta held to the following effect: “The Court at the time of final hearing of the writ petition is not entitled to dismiss the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had alternative remedy or there is any delay in moving the writ petition. In the instant case, the delay is not fatal for the writ petitioner as the respondent-authority had acted without jurisdiction in the matter of termination of service of the writ petitioner” On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent, has relied on a judgment reported in Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India[2], wherein the Apex Court observed thus: “The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily.” To buttress his contention, he has also relied on a judgment reported in Chittipolu Kishan Vs. Govt. of A.P.[3] wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “In the light of the above legal position coupled with the conduct of the appellants in pursuing the matter, we are of the considered view that the attempt made by the appellants at this point of time i.e. after a lapse of about 35 years (from 1968) is a belated one. The appellants have not taken any prompt steps at the earliest point of time in bringing their grievances to the notice of the authorities thereby prompting them to initiate land acquisition proceedings without must loss of time. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants were not diligent enough in pursuing the matter either with the authorities or in approaching this Court. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge on the point of ‘laches” cannot be interfered with by this Court. This writ appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.” From the contentions advanced by both the learned Government Pleader and the senior counsel for the 1st respondent, some glaring laches are transparent on the part of the petitioner- District Judge. In spite of the fact that the impugned order was passed on 13.9.1994, this writ petition challenging that order was filed in the year 1997. In addition to that this Court granted several adjournments at the instance of the learned Government Pleader to enable him to produce relevant records for the purpose of adjudicating the matter, but he has failed to produce them. Further, though the petitioner-District Collector was informed about the death of the 1st respondent and the proposed legal representatives by the 1st respondent’s counsel through a letter dated 9.6.2003, the petitioner was silent all these long years and filed implead petition on 12.4.2007 i.e. after a lapse of nearly four years. Even the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition does not reveal tenable grounds for this inordinate delay in taking steps to get the legal representatives impleaded. Moreover, this Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has thoroughly gone through the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, but found no gross errors of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities nor their action is in flagrant disregard of law for the purpose of making corrections inasmuch as the authorities appreciated the material placed on record from correct perspective and held that the 1st respondent is entitled for the grant of ryotwari patta. Hence, the mere contention put forth by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the authorities erroneously held that the 1st respondent is entitled for ryothwari patta, cannot be sustained. In the light of the glaring laches on the part of the petitioner and the supporting view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in judgment (3rd cited) supra, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limini. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. _______________ .06.2007 bcj [1] 1993(1) LLJ 471 [2] AIR 1977 SC 1979 [3] 2002(4) ALT 93 (D.B.)