Telangana High Court
WP/42794/2015 of Malla Chinni Sreedevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2015
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.42794 of 2015 ORDER: Heard. The petitioner seeks to question the resumption order passed against her mother as early as on 30-12-2005. During her lifetime, she never questioned the said order though she was aware of it. However, the petitioner’s mother filed
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
W.P.No.42794 of 2015
Heard.
The petitioner seeks to question the resumption order passed againsther mother as early as on 30-12-2005. During her lifetime, she neverquestioned the said order though she was aware of it. However, thepetitioner’s mother filed W.P.No.18488 of 2007 questioning the rejection ofher request for regularisation and the same was disposed of on 28-06-2012setting aside the rejection order and directed that her application forregularisation has to be considered by the Committee constituted underG.O.Ms.No.1601, dated 29-08-2005. In the present writ petition,though this court is not concerned with the said aspect relating toregularisation, it has to be noted that in the said writ petition a counteraffidavit filed by the respondent therein specifically stated that the resumptionorder was passed against the mother of the petitioner and the land wasresumed while specifically referring to the reference number and the date ofthe impugned order and the same was also referred to in the order of thisCourt, dated 28-06-2012. It is, therefore, surprising that neither thepetitioner’s mother nor any body on her behalf has questioned the saidresumption order at any time and it is only in the month of December 2015i.e., the petitioner has chosen to question the said order. Hence, I do not seeany bonafides on the part of the petitioner in questioning the impugned orderafter ten years.
As the writ petition clearly suffers from unexplained serious delay andlaches, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
Prv
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.42794 of 2015
31-12-2015