'Slept Over' Matter: AP High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1996 Land Resumption Order, Says Plea Filed With Unexplained 20-Yrs Delay

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld an order of a single judge bench which had dismissed a 2016 writ petition challenging a 1996 cancellation of land assignment— noting that the challenge was made after an unexplained delay of 20 years.The appellant had purchased a parcel of land in 1990. However, in 1996, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent 3) had cancelled the assignment, resumed the land to the government– allegedly without the knowledge of the appellant, changed the nature of the land, and gave the same in lease to one M/s Lakshmi Granites.Against this backdrop, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice TCD Sekhar held,“The grant of lease in favour of M/s.Lakshmi Granites was not denied by the appellant. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land from the year 1996 when the same was resumed to government by proceedings dated 18.11.1996. Further, the appellant did not file any iota of evidence to show that he is in possession of the subject land. Furthermore, nothing is forthcoming from the appellant as to what action was initiated subsequent to grant of lease in favour of Ms.Lakshmi Granites, neither the lease holder was made as party respondent to the writ petition. Apart from the same, when third party rights have been accrued in respect of the subject land, the same cannot be light heartedly divested, especially when lease was granted way back in the year 1997. The appellant having slept over the matter has indulged in chance litigation.”Noting that the appellant had miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the writ petition, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge and held,“In the case on hand though the resumption order passed in the year 1996, the petitioner kept quiet for 20 long years without assailing the said order. Further, despite filing of counter affidavit by the 4th respondent, he did not choose to implead the lease holder as party respondent to the writ petition”In his writ petition filed in 2016— i.e. roughly after a period of 20 years of the cancellation of the land assignment, the petitioner alleged that he was not intimated about the same. In contrast, Respondent 4 had submitted that before passing of the order of cancellation, the appellant was issued notice, however, he neither turned up nor objected to the same. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge in 2025. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order of the Single Judge.Before the Division Bench, he contended that he had legally purchased the land in 1990, however, he did not dispute the land was given on lease to M/s. Lakshmi Granites for a period of 15 years and was further renewed till 2034.As the grant of lease was not denied by the appellant, that no material was placed to corroborate the contention he was in possession of the said land, and that the challenge was made after 20 years, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the Single-Judge.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.Case Details:Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.1143/2025Case Title: SHAKEEL PASHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 179Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Slept Over' Matter: AP High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1996 Land Resumption Order, Says Plea Filed With Unexplained 20-Yrs Delay

Saahas Arora

Tags