Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Dismissal of Delayed Land Resumption Challenge

Court rules 20-year delay in contesting land resumption order is inexcusable, as third-party rights have been established.

In a significant decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a writ appeal challenging the cancellation of a land assignment and its subsequent resumption by the government, citing a two-decade delay in filing the petition as untenable. The division bench, comprising Justices Sri R Raghunandan Rao and Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, delivered the judgment in the case of Shakeel Pasha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reinforcing the principle that substantial justice should not prejudice third-party rights established over long periods.

The appellant, Shakeel Pasha, had purchased a parcel of land in Chittoor District via a registered sale deed in 1990, only to discover that the land had been resumed by the government in 1996, following a cancellation of its original assignment. Unbeknownst to Pasha, the land was subsequently leased to M/s Lakshmi Granites for quarrying operations, with the lease being extended until 2034.

Pasha's writ petition, filed in 2016, sought to overturn the 1996 resumption order. However, both the learned Single Judge and the division bench found his explanations for the 20-year delay insufficient. The court emphasized that the law of limitation serves a public policy purpose, ensuring that legal claims are pursued diligently and that third-party rights are respected.

In its judgment, the court cited precedent from the Supreme Court, noting that delay condonation must be grounded in bona fide explanations and should not undermine the rights of parties who have since acquired legitimate interests in the disputed property.

The court observed that Pasha had failed to implead M/s Lakshmi Granites, the current leaseholder, as a respondent in his original writ petition, further weakening his case. The bench concluded that, given the appellant's prolonged inaction and the creation of third-party rights, there was no merit in disturbing the status quo.

The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of limitation periods in civil proceedings and the necessity of balancing justice with established legal rights.

Bottom Line:

Delay in challenging cancellation of land assignment after 20 years is not condonable, especially when third-party rights have been created and petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, Sections 3 and 5.

Shakeel Pasha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810676