Hyderabad: A claim over 3.14 acres of land in Gandamguda village in Rangareddy district was rejected by Telangana high court, which held that the petitioners were attempting to revive a decades old dispute after an unexplained delay of nearly 68 years.Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty dismissed a writ petition seeking correction of revenue records and recognition of pattadar rights over the land in survey No. 22 of Gandipet mandal, observing that the claim had been pursued after an extraordinary lapse of time without any convincing explanation.The petition was filed by four persons, including an advocate, a businessman and two farmers, who contended that their ancestors were granted pattadar rights over the land by the then district collector, Atraf Balda, in March 1950. They argued that although a declaratory order had subsequently been passed in their favour, only a portion of the land was reflected in the Faisal Patti of 1954, leaving the disputed extent unaccounted for.The petitioners sought mutation of 3.14 acres, claiming it had been wrongly classified as ‘poramboke sarkari’ land. “This land was wrongly classified as poramboke sarkari and repeated representations to authorities concerned for correction of records were ignored,” they argued.They further alleged that revenue officials had entered the land with a JCB and damaged it while asserting govt ownership. Relying on earlier proceedings, including the dismissal of a land grabbing case initiated by the govt, they contended that their possession had been recognised.The govt opposed the plea, maintaining that survey and settlement records from 1954-55 onwards consistently described the land as govt poramboke sarkari land. “Neither the petitioners nor their ancestors were ever recorded as pattadars in respect of the disputed land and that no documentary evidence establishing title or possession was produced,” govt counsel argued.The state further contended that the special court’s finding that the petitioners were not land grabbers could not be construed as a declaration of title.Agreeing with the govt’s objections, the court noted that the petitioners approached authorities only through representations made from 2011 onwards despite claiming rights originating from proceedings conducted in 1950. “As such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone,” the court held.“The petitioners having approached the authorities after more than six decades, failed to give cogent and plausible reasons for filing representations after a lapse of 68 years and it is evident from the facts that petitioners are trying to revive a stale claim and unsettle the settled things after a long period of time,” the judge observed.Holding that entertaining such a belated claim would disturb matters that had long attained finality, the court declined to examine the merits of the title dispute and dismissed the petition.
