THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22372 of 2010 DT.26.8.2011 Between: Sakku Bai and ors … Petitioners And Smt Shantha Bai and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent No. 43: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22372 of 2010 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) The writ petitioners herein are either the respondents or the legal heirs of the respondents 40 to 58 in L.G.C.No. 3 of 1988 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short referred to as the Special Court), who filed the present writ petition questioning the judgment of the Special Court dated 20.1.1992. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the applicants, who filed the subject Land Grabbing Case against as many as 58 respondents in which it claimed or alleged that they are the owners and title holders of land admeasuring Ac.16.06 gts in Survey Nos. 48, 130 to 133 and 135 situated at Fateh Nagar village, Balanagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district. It is stated that they have purchased the subject property pursuant to decree and judgment dated 25.10.1968 in O.S.No. 55 of 1965 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under an assignment of conveyance dated 23.2.1971 executed by the 4th respondent. It is stated that there are some land acquisitions in which rival claim was set up but they were declared to be rightful owners. Initially the Land Grabbing Case was filed as against 38 respondents and thereafter the respondent no.39 was added as a party respondent and further the respondents 40 to 63 were also added therein. The petitioners herein are either the respondents 40 to 58 or their legal heirs, claim that they are the protected claimants in respect of the suit land. The Special Court, rejected the contentions of the writ petitioners herein as regards the protected tenancy and the acquisition of title by adverse possession. The Special Court has further held that they are not in the possession of Revenue Survey nos. 130, 132 amd 133, thus, the question of adverse possession does not arise. The Special Court, by its judgment dated 20.1.1992 held that the petitioners therein/respondents 1 to 4 herein are the owners of property in question and are liable to be resorted to possession excluding Ac.200 in Survey No. 130 and 8 Mulgies and 500 Sq.yards in S.No. 131 and also house property claimed by the first respondent under Ex.B.7 in S.No. 130 after vacating the respondents and structures therefrom. The petitioners have not chosen to question the said judgment within time and after lapse of 18 years, have filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record. The present writ petition is sought to be filed with an inordinate delay of 18 years on the ground that some of the third parties who are not parties to the Land Grabbing Case, questioned the judgment of the Special Court before this Court and this Court on the consideration of the matter, dismissed the said writ petition, and aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8473 of 2003 and the Hon’ble Apex Court, allowed the appeal on the ground that they are not parties to the Land Grabbing Case and no notice under Rule 8 was issued to them and thereby set aside the judgment of the Special Court, insofar as they are concerned. It is further stated that some of the parties to the Land Grabbing Case, have also filed writ petitions before this Court, which were dismissed and the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions are stated to be pending. It is also stated that in the pending Special Leave petitions before the Supreme Court, the petitioners herein have got themselves impleaded as respondents. Merely because the Special Leave Petitions filed at the instance of some of the parties to the Land Grabbing Case are pending, we do not see any reason or justification on the part of the petitioners herein in filing the present writ petition after lapse of 18 years. Further, having regard to the fact that the Special Court has already rejected their claim as regards the protected tenancy as well as adverse possession, we are also not inclined to deal with the matter on merits. The petitioners are not diligent in pursuing their remedies in challenging the judgment of the Land Grabbing Case within reasonable time and the writ petition fails and is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G KRISHNA MONAH REDDY,J DATE:26.8.2011 TVK 77 tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22372 of 2010 DT.26.8.2011