APHC010277882017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.500 of 2016 Between: Shakeel Pasha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.C.PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G.P. FOR ASSIGNMENT 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in cancelling the assignment vide proceedings dated 18.11.1996 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to set aside the same. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3) The case of the petitioner in brief is that an extent of Ac.1-90 cents situated in Ramakuppam Vilalge & Mandal of Chittoor District, originally assigned in favour of Kallati Lakshma Reddy in the year 1930 to 1932 and as he was a minor at that time, his mother Smt.Papamma stood as guardian. After the said Lakshma Reddy became major, he sold the said property in the year 1958 to one Mr. B. Seetaramaiah and after some transactions as set out in para-3 of the writ affidavit, which are not clear as to the flow of title, it would appear that the petitioner herein purchased the said extent of land vide Registered Sale deed document No.2292/1990, dated 05.11.1990. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the respondent authorities have issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in respect of the above extent of land in favour of the petitioner and the 3 material on record go to show that the petitioner was paying land cist to the Gram Panchayat. He submits that to the petitioner’s utter surprise the impugned proceedings were issued, purportedly cancelling the assignment, as the original assignee allegedly violated the conditions of the assignment. He submits that before passing the said proceedings, the petitioner herein was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and in fact, as the assignment was prior to 1954 i.e., issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, the 4th respondent has no authority to cancel the assignment granted in favour of even the original assignee. He also contends that cancellation of assignment after long lapse of time is not tenable as per the settled legal position. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ Petition. 5) On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for assignment made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. He submits that the impugned proceedings were issued in the year 1996 and the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2016 and no reasons are forthcoming explaining the delay. He further submits that the contention no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings is not tenable; that as seen from the said proceedings, dated 18.11.1996, it is clear that the petitioner was not residing in the village and notice through substitute service was caused. He further submits that even the vendors of the petitioner had not 4 objected to the cancellation of the assignment and subsequent to the cancellation, a quarry lease over the land in question was granted to M/s Lakshmi Granites in the year 1997 and the same is renewed upto 21.07.2034. He submits that the petitioner, though well aware of the grant of quarry lease, had not disclosed the said material facts and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. He also contends that in fact, the petitioner had remedy of appeal against the impugned order but, however, without filing the same, for the reasons best known to him, the present Writ Petition was filed after a long lapse of 20 years since passing of the impugned proceedings and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 6) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Before dealing with the submissions made on behalf of both sides, it may be appropriate to mention that on 06.01.2016, at the time of taking up of the mater for admission, the following order was passed: “The petitioner questions the order passed as early as on 18.11.1996 and absolutely no reasons are mentioned as to why the discretion of this Court deserves to be exercised. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file an additional affidavit. Post after Sankranthi Vacation, 2016.” 7) No additional affidavit was filed, much less explaining the delay in filing the Writ Petition in the year 2016 when the proceedings impugned 5 were passed on 18.11.1996. Even in the reply affidavit dated 30.12.2024 to the counter affidavit of the respondent dated 30.04.2018, no reasons for the delay in approaching the Court were set out. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Be that as it may. 8) The petitioner, except relying on the pattadar passbook and cist receipt dated 02.01.1998, had not placed any material to show that he is in possession of the land in question. Neither in the writ affidavit nor in the reply, any such assertion with regard to his possession was made. There is no formal denial to the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, but a new vague plea that “the 4th respondent with mala fide intention and hidden motive cancelled the patta with a view to create unlawful gain to one of the politician and gave NOC for mining lease” was taken. It may be pertinent to mention here that in the counter affidavit, apart from the allegation that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact with regard to granting of mining lease, it was specifically asserted that the quarry lease was granted to M/s Lakshmi Granites for a period of 15 years from 14.11.1997 to 13.11.2012 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner and it was renewed upto 21.07.2034. Though about seven years, since the filing of the counter affidavit have elapsed, no steps have been taken to impelad the said lessee. It appears that the petitioner is not serious in prosecuting his 6 remedies right from the beginning and due to his lackadaisical attitude rights accrued to the third party i.e., the lessee in whose favour the mining lease was renewed. There is no denial that the nature of the land was changed as long back as in the year 1997 and quarry operations are being carried on in the land in question. The petitioner who is guilty of laches, cannot expect exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in his favour. It is trite that the law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 9) In view of the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. Hence, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:28.02.2025. SSV 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.500 of 2016 Date:28.02.2025 SSV