The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently upheld the order of a Single Judge bench that had dismissed a writ petition challenging the government’s cancellation and resumption of an assigned parcel of land dating back to 1996, emphasising that the petitioner’s delay of roughly two decades in approaching the court amounted to “chance litigation” and no valid reason was offered for such inaction. The appellant had purchased the land in 1990, but in 1996 the Revenue Divisional Officer rescinded the assignment, resumed the land to the State government and re-classified it. The resumed land was subsequently leased out to a private company. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of the resumption proceedings at the time, and only moved a writ petition in 2016, about 20 years after the government action.
He alleged that the resumption was improper, the nature of the land had been altered and that he did not receive any notice or opportunity to contest the cancellation of the assignment. In response, the State contended that proper statutory process was followed in 1996, including issuing notice to the appellant, and that he neither participated in the proceedings nor objected at that stage. The land was also leased to a third party for a long term, giving rise to accrued third-party rights. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis that there was no satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay in seeking judicial review, and that the petitioner had remained silent for years while the leaseholder continued in possession.
When the appellant challenged that dismissal before the Division Bench, the High Court reiterated that a delay of more than 20 years with no cogent justification eroded the very basis for judicial interference. The bench pointed out that the appellant had not disputed the fact of the lease being granted to the company nor provided evidence showing he was in actual possession of the land after its resumption to the government. The bench observed that, given the passage of time and the subsequent rights that had vested in the leaseholder, it would be inappropriate to disrupt settled interests by resurrecting the dispute.
The Court noted that, in matters involving resumption of assigned land, there is an expectation that affected parties exercise reasonable diligence in challenging administrative action within a period that allows effective relief. In this case, the appellant had kept quiet for two decades before filing his petition, and merely asserting ignorance of the proceedings did not satisfy the requirement of explaining the delay. The bench emphasised that challenges to administrative decisions must not be indefinitely deferred if third-party rights have intervened and substantial time has elapsed. By failing to act promptly, the appellant had effectively “slept over” his rights and could not rely on belated litigation to upset settled arrangements.
The High Court also stressed that when a resumption order is not disputed by the original party at the time and a lease or similar right has been legally granted, later upheavals could unfairly prejudice those who lawfully acquired rights and invested based on the official status of land records. Here, the appellant did not even implead the leaseholder as a respondent, indicating a lack of clarity about whom he sought to oppose or what precise relief he desired after so many years.
Accordingly, the division bench refused to disturb the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, effectively affirming that the writ petition’s long unexplained delay barred relief. The ruling reinforces the principle that equitable and statutory limitations on challenging government action — particularly when third-party rights are involved — are critical to maintain legal certainty and prevent stale claims from unsettling long-standing land interests. It also underscores that courts will not entertain challenges where parties have “slept over” their rights without credible reasons for such extended inaction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.