The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of second respondent in conforming the order of 4th respondent by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide appeal No.9/2020 dated 21-9-2020 and conforming the refusal orders of 4th respondent vide No. l/2020 DaIed 8-2-2020 and direct the 4th respondent to release document in P.No.2l202O by setting aside the orders of 2nd and 4th respondents. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to rerease document in p. No. ',r.r2o2o by suspending the orders of respondent No. 2 and 4 vide appeal No. 9/2020 Dated 21-9-2020 (passed by 2nd respondent) refusar No i12020 Dared g-2-2020 pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RUDRESH DESHpANDEy counsel forthe Respondent Nos.i ro 4 & 7: Ms. DARA HARITHA KTRAN, Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRt M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR SBI counsel for the Respondent No.6: Ms. J.suNrrHA, AGp FoR TNDUSTRTES AGP FOR RE!'ENUE AND COMMERCE The Court made the following: ORDER ! l THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI UIRIT PETITION No. 1598 of 2O21 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer "...to issue writ more particularly one in the nature of vrrit of mandamus declaring the action of second resporldent in conforming thc order of 4tL respondent by rejecting the the petitioner vide appea-l appeal frled by No.9 /2O2O dared 21.9.2020 and conforming the refusal orders of 4th respondent vide No. 1/2020 Dated 8.2.2O2O ald direct thc 4m rcspondcnt to release document in P.No.2l2O2O by sctting asiCe the orders of 2nd arrd 41J) respondents and to pass such other order or orders.. .."

2. Heard Mr. Rudresh Dcspandey, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Bank and Mr.J.Sunitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent No.6.

3. It is the specific case of petitioner that he purchased Plot No.23 admeasuring 1,200 Square yards along with Industrial shed of plinth area 1,886 square feet located in 1l --\."-.-- \r 2 IAK,J W.P.No. 1598 of 2021 Sy.No.555/1 of Baddenapalli Village, Textil: park, Sircilla from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Sircilla llranch through E-auction. Petitioner emerged as successful bidder and the said property came to be registered vide sale deed No.9B4 of 2016 by r.irtue of which petitioner becomr: the absolute owner. A copy of the schedule of the propertv Ls arnexed as document l.o the writ paper P5 (Pg.No.59).

4. It is observed that the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Sircilla Branch, conduc:ed auction of plot as M/s.Jyostna Textiles, Baddenapelly, represented by its proprietor, Smt. Vasam Umadevi, had defartted payment of amounts due to the Bank.

5. P6 is the sale deed dated 24.08.2002. T1rc contents of the sale deed reflect that the Commissioner ci- Handlooms ald Textiles ald the Development Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A. P. , Hyderabad, executed the sale deed in favour of M / s. Jyostna Textiles, Baddenapell,r', represented by its proprietor, Smt. Vasam Umadevi. 3 JAK,J W.P.No.l598 of 2021

6. It is pertinent to note that Clause 7 of the sale deed specihcally stipulates that the land allotted to the party (purchased) pursuant to the application shall be utilized "for the purpose of power loom rveaving and allied activities only". This condition in the sale deed reflects that a purchaser in an auction has to abide by the same. It is the policy of the State Governrnent to give a boost to the textile industry, specifically to those cngaged in weaving activities. Pursuanr\to such a policy, the Textile Park was established at Sircilla for the benefit of individuals involved in the activity of r,veaving. Plots have been a_llotted accordingly to those persons involved in such activity. 7 . Petitioner purchased the schedule property in an auction conducted by State Bank of Hyderabad. This is not in dispute. Petitioner entered into a sale deed on

17.OL2O2O. A copy of the sale deed is annexed as document (Pg.Nos.18 to 221. When the sa-le deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the ground that the said property is included in the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22-A of the Registration 4 \i - JAK,J i/.P.No.I 598 of2021 Act, 1908 ( for short "the Act, 1908") anct classified as prohibitory property ulde District Collector, Karimnagr bearing document No.E3l35a5/201 1, dated OS.06.2Ot2.

8. A copy of the refusal order bearing No. 1 of 2020, issued by the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sirci1la, dated O8.O2.2O20, is annexed as a document at pa11e, 15, and the intimation of refusal is at page 14 (P2l.It is this refusal that is under challenge before this Court.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits ttrat the subject property was sold in favour of M/s.Jyostna Te;<tiles uide saJe deed dated 24.08.2OO7 by the Commissioner r>f Handlooms. It is further submitted that M/s. Jyostna 'lextiles, the borrower of a term loan offered by the State Bank of Hyderabad (Pg.No.65), defaulted in repayment and consequently, the State Bank of Hyderabad pul. the subject property to auction. Upon conhrmation of sale, a sa_le certificate was issued in favour of petitioner (pg. No. 64). It is further submitted that petitioner entered into a contract for sa-le of the subject property uide sale cteecl, dated 5 JAK.J W.P.No. t 598 of 2021 l7.Ol.2O2O. When the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar refused registration.

10. Be that as it may, this Court observes that learned counsel has addressed complialce with Clause 7 of the sale deed dated 24.O8.2OO7, which was executed in favour of M/s. Jyostna Textiles. Clause 7 of the sale deed is as follows: "That the commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles A.P.Hyderabad has agreed to Sell/allot the land in favour of the party in pursuance of their application dated 05.06.200i and that the plot in the Textile Park, area is to be utilized for thc purpose of POWERLOOM WEAVING AND ALLIED ACTIVITY ONLY. The Commissioner of Handlooms ald Textiles; A.P. Hyderabad, represented, by park Administrator TexLile Park, Sircilia has agreed to convey tle party." lJ. On perusal of the said clause, it is inferred that the plot in the Textile Park is to be utilized solely for the purpose of power loom weaving and allied activities only. Further, Clause 8, reads as follows: " Which shal1 be utilized for the purpose of setting up of an industry for malufacturing of Textiles/related activity shall got be approved by the Handloom Textile Department and also such other competent authorities." 6 YI JAK,J \V. P.No.1598 ol202l -

12. It is evident that the said plot shall bt: utiiized for setting up of an industry for marufacturing of Textiles or related activity by getting an approval lrom the Textiie Department.

13. When this Court queried learned counsel rvhether the plot mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.01.2C20 would be utilized for the purposes specified in Clauses 7 and B of the sa-le deed dated 24.O8.2OO2, learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that the subject prop€,rty shall be utilized for the purposes mentioned in the sale, deecl dated

24.O8.2OO7, specifically Clauses 7 and 8 and a:;sured this Court that the said plot shall be put to use orry for such purposes. Learned counsel invited the atten _i,tn of this Court to paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit and s,uibmitted to the Court that it is averred in the paragraph that the said plot shall be utilized exclusively for textile business purposes.

14. In view of Clauses 7 & 8 in the sale deed cf 2OOT , and the submissions of the learned counsel for pr,tLtioner (on instructions), this Court deems it appropriate that petitioner 7 JAK,J W.P.No.1598 of 2021 be permitted to make a representation to the District Collector, who sha-ll consider the grievance of petitioner and take art appropriate decision regarding denotification of the property from the prohibited list in accordance with law'

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for officiai respondents has placed on record instructions, dated

28.01.2021, the contents of which are as follows: " In connection to the subject and reference cited, I am herewith submitting my brief notes of W.P.No.159a of 2027 for of perusal and frling of counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.4 Sri S. Kiran Kumar S/o Sarveshwarsia, Age: Years, Occ: Sub- Registrar, Sircilla Town and mzrndal of Raj anna Sireilla District as per the records available in the oIEce. As per the recitals of the pending Document No.2 of 2O2O the then Sub-Registrar has refused t]'e document vide Refusal No.Ol of 2O2O on Dated: L7 .01.2020. The contents of the document is Sri Boda Ravinder s/o Yellaia-h Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/ o 72-LO-7 | Pragathinagar, sircilla town ana maldal of Rajalna Sirciall District executed a SALE DEED in favour of Sri Raju Rajaiah Gajengi S/o Raj aiah, Age about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.225/ 1 GAjengi Niwas, A-wing, Flat.No.4O1, Kombadpad Road, Near Shivaji Chauk, Kasar Ali, Bhiwandi, Dist:Thane of bearing Sy.No.555/ i in Plot.No.23 to an extent of 1200.00 Sq.yds Situatcd at Baddenapalli village of Thangallapalli mandal pertaining to Tin Shed roof house with open place with 1886.oo Sq.fts. The then Sub-Registrar, sircilla has refused the document vide Refusal. No.l of 2O2o and T .- -q...--l \ 8 JAK,J W.P.No.l598 of 2021 recorded the reasons under Section 'il of Registration Act, 1908 that, the rraid Sy.No.555/ 1 is noted in the proh bited Property list furnished by the Revenue Authorities vide District Coll,:6tep, Karimnagar No.E3/3545/201 1, t ated: 05.06.2012 and the same has been fec :.nto the Prohibited Property List of CCA. The District Registrar, Karimnagar inforrned and passed an appeal vide App _'lLate Authority under Section 72 of Registrarion Act, l9O8 and District Registrar, KarimrLagar Appeal. No.O9/2O2O, Dated:2l.O9.21)20 wherein the executant Sri B.Ravinder J?/o Sircilla submitted an appeat U/s 7 2 of Registration Act, 1908 on 04.03.2020 tha,_ in delete the said survey number from the prohibited properties list and direct thc s,rtr- Registrar, sircilla to admit the docume rlt to registraLion and the same has been re.;t:cted by the District Registrar, Karimnaga_r. As per the instructions issued by the Commissioner & Inspector General of (F:&,S), TS. Hyderabad videMemo.No.G 1 / tO7 S / 2016, Dated: 77.06.2016 and Circu lar Memo.No.G1 / 1 9 13 | / 2OO5, dated: 14.O9..t(tOT ald Government of Telangana Go.Ms.No. l2 1 Revenue (Registration- 1) Depaftnrent, Dated:01.06.2O16 Rule 238 to 243 any addition/ deletion/modification to the li:;t of prohibited properlies is to be made by the (lollector who intern address the Commissioner & Inspector General of (R&S), J{yderabad :;u ch .rddition/deletion/modification under Section 2.2-A of the Registration Act, 1908." L6. It is submitted by learned counsel for. respondents that, if petitioner makes a representation, the sreme shall be considered in the light of the undertaking given by petitioner. Learned counsel has placed ar.other set of 9 JAK,J W.P.No.I598 of202l instructions, dated 02.09.2025. The contents of which are as follows: "[t is respectfully submitted t]tat, t]re above Writ petition is frled by the petitioners in the above Writ Petition i.e., M./s. Ravinder Textiles, Baddenapalli Sircilla Represented by proprietor Sri Boda Ravinder S/o. Yellaiah, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12- 1O-71, Pragathinagar, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District to declarc that the action of tl.e Respondent No.4 in refusing document witJ. refusal number I /2O2O presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the admeasuring an area of 12OO.0O Square Yards along with shed of 1886 sq.fts in Sy.No.555/ 1 vith plot No.23 situated at Textile Park, Baddcnapelli Village, Tharrgallapelly Mandal, Rajanna Sircrlla Mandal. It is respectfully submitted that, The petitioner purchased property through the registered document number 944 /2016 executed by M/ s.Jyostna Textiles Represented by Smt. Vasam UmaDevi in favour M/s. Ravinder Textiles represented by Boda Ravinder. And he intended to salc thc property he purchased in Survey number 555/l with plot no.23 to an extent of 120O sq.yds along with shed plinth area of 1886 Sq.fts situated at Textile Park, Baddenapelli Village, Thangallapelli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District but the regarding the Survey Number 555/ I of Baddenapelli Village, Thanggallapally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District has been fed into the Prohibited Property list under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908 for Registration as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble District Collector, Lr.No.E3/3545 / 20 I I, Dated: 05.06.2O 12. Therefore, Sub Registrar, Sircilla refused to register the document executed by the Petitioners in the Writ petition hled in the Karirnnagar 1 l0 JAK,J ',V.P.No.1598 of 202 t o Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telanilana, Hyderabad. The property a_lienateci i; exhibiting in the list furnished under se:tion 22 A, the document will be refuse(l to Rcgistration and the same refused u ith rcfusa-l number L /2O2O." 17 This Court, having perused both the written instructions, does not find much of difference 1lt contents in the two writ ten instructions I B. Be that as it may, as the petitioner. through his counsel, has undertaken to utilize the said plot r;olely for the purposes nrentioned in the sale deed datea 24.OS.2OOZ, specifically .eflected in clauses z and g, this Court dcems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Office of the District Collector to ,ronsider the representati{rn of petitioner for denotifying the propert5r from the prohibitecl list under Section 22_A of the Act, l9og. Needless to slate that the purchaser of the proper[ shall give an undr:rraking by way of an affidavit to abide by the Clauses 7 &.8. It is made clear that the purchaser shall abide by the undertaking given to the ofrrce or- the District Collector, if there is aly violation of the undert;lking given by purchaser', the District Collector is at liber -,, to initiate - 1I JAK,J W. P.No. t 598 of 202 t proccedings through the Office of the Commissioner of Textiles. A copy of the undertaking shall a-lso be given in the office of Commissioner of Textilcs.

19. Petitioner is permitted to make a representation with all relevant details and copies of undertaking to the Ofhce of the District Collector arrd to the Office of the Commissioner of Textiles. Upon such representation, the District Collector shall consider denotifying the property in accordalce with law, within a period of four (04) weeks. Once denoti{ied the parties are at libert5r to proceed in accordance with law'

20. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SO/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To //TRUE COPY// \.i

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sbcretariat, Hyderabad, State Of Telangana. Siricilla branch, Karimnagar District.

2. District Rlgistrar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District' 3. District Coltector, Karimnagar District. (S12) 4. The Joint Sub Registrar Siiicilla, Karimnagar District' S. fne grancn Manaler, State Bank of lndia, (the then Sate Bank of Hyderabad) 6. The Assistant Director (Tixtiles), The park Administrator, Textile Park' 7. The District Collector, Raianna Sircilla District. B. Ond CC to SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE, Advocate IOPUCI g. f*o CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Siricilla, Karimnagar District. Hvderabad. [OUTI \ State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 10 Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE lligh Court for the '1 'l.One CC to SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR SBI [CPUC] 12.Two CD Copres PSK. PSK 8) I ---_J HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 ORDER (\o t CC TODAY \,- tl\1S r,( ", (t I t WP.No.1598 of 2021 i) 1 I ,0lJ 7025 \\ .r it . i,' ,,2, !;.r-l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \b