The court dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his appeal regarding disputed land possession. The court held the claim was stale, initiated for compensation claims after over two decades of inaction.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.15119 of 2015
ORDER:
Heard.
The petitioner claims that his father purchased the land admeasuring Ac.8-30 cents in Sy.No.136/1 situated at Palasamudram Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapuram District vide registered document No.1461/1951, dated 21-06-1951 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land during his life time. After his death, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. However, alleging that the petitioner came to know allotment of Ac.4-58 cents in Sy.No.136/1C in favour of the 4th respondent and an extent of Ac.3-46 cents in Sy.No.136/1A in favour of the 5th respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was heard and dismissed on 07-02-2015 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has questioned the allotment after lapse of 19 years and the land was already classified as Government land and as such, the private sale deed relied upon by the petitioner was not accepted. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said order of the 2nd respondent, dated 07-02-2015.
It is apparent from the narration of the facts above that the petitioner’s claim is not only stale but it appears to be a litigation initiated only for the purpose of claiming compensation, after keeping quiet for over two decades. The order of the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal therefore does not deserved to be interfered with and if really the petitioner is the owner of the land, it is difficult to accept as he has not taken any action against the said allotment for over two decades. Therefore no discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
Date: 01-06-2015
Prv
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.15119 of 2015
02-06-2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of inaction for over two decades regarding the disputed land allotment.
Whether the petitioner's claim of ownership is sustainable given the stale nature of the litigation initiated after a long period of silence.
Petitioner
Respondent 2
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Vilas V.Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
