The High Court · 2025

HONIBLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRJT PETITIOI[ No. I 2o,0 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the application dated 2O.O2.2O23 towards issuance of Raithu Bandu as illegal' arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs'

2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record' .li 6' It is stated that petitioner No' 1 is the owner and 3. possessor of land to an extent of Ac'1'36 gts'' ln Sy.No.1a4/A/ I / | /l; penioner No'2 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac'0'34 gts'; in Sy'No'139/1' Ac'O'15 gts., in Sy.No. 139/2A, Ac'2'03 gts', in Sy'No'141/A' Ac'O'11 gts., in Sy.No.141/A2B, total admeasuring Ac'4 '2O gts; petitioner No.3 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.O.17 gts', in Sy.No'139/2/1, Ac'O'33 gts'' in Sy'No'139/3' Ac.O.29 gts., in Sy.No.139/D, Ac'O'12 gts'' in Sy'No'141/A2a' Ac.2.O2 gts., in Sy.No'141/AA3, Ac'2'2O gts'' in Sy'No'141/D' total admeasuring Ac.6.33 gts; petitioner No'4 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac'3 '27 gts'' in Sy.No:144/D/A; petitioner No'5 is the owner and possessor of { 2 CVBR, J Wp_l200 2025 land to an extent of Ac.4.0O gts., in Sy.No.142/ 1/2; petitioner No.6 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.l.29 gts., in Sy.No.139/YA, Ac.4.18 gts., in Sy.Nop. 139/yA.tt./1, total admeasuri.eg Ac.6.OT gts; petitioner No.7 is the oq,ner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.2.l2 gts., in Sy.No.135/BA7/2; petitioner No.g is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.3.36 gts., in Sy.No. 135/3; pretitioner No.9 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent oJ,Ac.3.O9 gts., in S;z.No. 131/A1; petitioner No.l0 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.S.OO gts., in Sy.No.M4/ 1; petitioner No.11 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 5fs., in Sy.No.M4/3/2; petitioner No.12 is the owner and posse:rsor of lald to an extent of Ac. 1.10 gts., in Sy.No. 139/l(/L, Ac.4.37 gts., in Sy:No.M4l2, Ac.1.33 gts., in Sy.No.144/2/1/1, situated at Dongaon Village, Jukkal Mandal, Kamareddy District. It is further stated that the petitioners belong to Sc:h6dq1"4 Tribes (ST) communit5r and are categorized as below poverty line and they are engaged in the agrir:ultural activities solely depending on the investment subsidies granted by the Government under various schemes. The case of the petitioners js that though they had been receirring Raithu Bandhu payments regularly until October, 2022, the pal,rnents were stoppecl abruptly without arry prior notice or explanation. b:., .:,i 9 3 CVBR, J wp 1200_2025 Therefore, they made art application dated 20.02.2023 to respondent No.2. However, no action has been taken ti1l date' Hence, the present writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that disputing the right and entitlement of the petitioners over the subject lands, a suit for specific performance was instituted against the petitioners uide O.S.No.23 of 2022 rel5ring upon the agreement of sale and an injunction was granted not to alienate the suit schedule propert5r, but there was no order by the competent Court directing the authorities not to release Raithu Bandhu benehts to the petitioners for cultivation of the subject lands. Learned counsel further contended that pending adjudication of the said suit, the petitioners are entitled to be in continuous possession and are enlitled to receive Raithu Bandhu benelits as investment subsidies for cultivation of the subject lands. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has 5. stated that the subject lands have been shown in the list of prohibited properties as court case is pending and therefore, the authorities have not released/deposited the Raithu Bandhu arnounts into the accounts of the petitioners' 4 CVBR, J wp 1200 202s

6. It is settled law that mere pendency of a suit instil.uted for speciflc performance does not take away any rights of the parties, unless the said suit is decided by granting decree for execution cf registered sale deed. It is also settled l,aw that entertaininp, a suit for specilic performalce and gralting decree for execution of registered sale deed is a discretionary relief and as a matte: of right, agreement holders are not entitled for execution oI registered sale deeds. ,l

7. In vie w of the above, as the suit was instituted ,lnly for specihc perlitrmance and unless it is decreed, the same does not confer any right in favour of the agreement holders and as it is stated that the subject lands are in occupation of the petitioners, :his Court is of the opinion that the petitior:Lers are entitled for IRaithu Baldhu benefits as investment subsidies for cultivation of the subject lands under the various s,:hemes introduced by the Government.

8. Accord ingly, this Writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make an application/representation on the file of respondent No.2 seeking deletion of the subject properties from the list of prohibited properties and in the event of rnaking such appliczttion, respondent No.2 is directed to delete the subject properties from the list of prohibited propertir:s and ,ta:... 5 CVB& J Wp_1200_2025 communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of making such application. Therea-fter, basing on the deletion orders, the respondents are directed to release the Raithu Bandhu benefits in favour of the petitioners as per their eligibility. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD,-K sff:rEAft+ttSlBTIXX ,/ //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 'iffiffifl##*ffiffiHffiiffi g.' - il \

7. T.wo CD CoPies BN B9 +P HIGH COUIRT DATED:1110212025 I \ t ORDER WP.No.1200 of 2025 H1 F. 9te r4l iQ ,J 21 l,lArr 2025 * D5 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS XK b \ eI