IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21144 of 2007 Between: 1 M.G. Anjaiah, S/o. late Gandamaiah, R/o. Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. 2 M. Ramchandraiah, S/o. late Gandamaiah, R/o. Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Office at Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 M/s. Ginir Orchades Private Limited, Rep by its Director Niraj Gelly, S/o. Ramesh Gelli, Registered Office at 4, Mahalakshmi Apartments 177, West Maredpally, Secunderabad-26. 4 G. Prabhakar, S/o. Narayana Shetti, R/o. Mahalaskhmi Apartments, West Maredpally, Secunderabad -26. 5 M/s. United Breaders Private Limited, Rep. by Arban Singh, S/o. Not Known, R/o. Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. 6 Sharif Bhai, S/o. Not Known, Major, R/o. Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. 7 Ramdev Reddy, S/o. Not Known, Major, R/o. Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to case No. F2/5029/1998 dated 05-06-2004 passed by the 1st respondent in dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners filed as against the order dated 22-1-1998 in file No. B/596/7 on the file of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the application for seeking restoration of the land in Survey No. 28 admeasuring Acres 13.2 guntas at Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and same may be quashed consequently the 1st and 2nd respondents may be directed to take over the possession of the land to the extent of Acres 8.29 guntas in Suvey No. 28, at Gandiguda Village to west the same in Government by excising powers U/Section 48 A of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 and restore the remaining land in Survey No. 28to the petitioners by excising powers U/Section 38E (2) of the said Act by duly evicting the respondents there from and pass such other order which are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 : None The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.21144 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners have assailed the order, dated 05.06.2004, passed by the first respondent, namely, Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeal filed by them against the order dated 22.01.1998, passed by the second respondent, namely, Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad, whereunder, the application filed by them under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, seeking restoration of possession of land in Sy.No.28 admeasuring Acs.13.29 cents situated at Gandiguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was rejected. Though the first respondent passed the impugned order as long back as on 05.06.2004, the petitioners filed the writ petition only on 05.10.2007. As there is no explanation tendered by the petitioners for the long delay in filing the writ petition against the impugned order, this Court directed the petitioners to file a better affidavit. Accordingly, the petitioners, particularly, the first petitioner, who is said to be handling the case, filed better affidavit, in U.S.R.No.12598 of 2007. The reason sought to be explained by the first petitioner for the delay is that he suffered from psoriasis and therefore, he could not file the writ petition immediately. Psoriasis is not a so grave disease, which immobilizes one from attending to his day-to-day activities, nor does it come in one’s way of discharging duties, much less, taking steps to file writ petition against the impugned order. The first petitioner also not filed any medical certificate in support of his disease. Be that as it may, the reason assigned by him in the affidavit justifying the delay is neither cogent nor convincing. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for laches. No costs. _________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J) 3rd March 2008. Ksr/sh