Geeta Paarishramika Sahakara Sangam v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The Tahsildar, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Bheemadevarapally, Hanumakonda District. 4. Sri Dulam Prabhakar, S/o Late Mutyalu, Aged about. 57 years, Occupation. Business, R/o Shanigaram Village, Kamalapoor It/andal, Hanumakonda District.

5. Sri Parakala Mogili, S/o Late Narasaiah, Aged about. 51 years, Occupation. Business, R/o. Shanigaram Village, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

6. Sri Manda lt/ogili, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about. 65 years, Occupation. Business, R1o Shairigaram Village, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

7. Aila Chandramouly, S/o Late Komuraiah, Aged about. 49 years, Occupation. Business, R/o. Shanigaram Village, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

8. Aila Jayashankar, S/o Late Komuraiah , Aged about. 44 yeats, Occupation. Business, Rio. Shanigaram Village, Kamalapoor lvlandal, Hanumakonda District.

9. Aila Dhanunjaya, S/o Late Ellaiah, Aged about. 65 years, Occupation. Retd. Shanigaram Village-, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda -Rio. RTC Driver, District. ..,..RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the Respondent Nos. l to 3 herein including the land of the petitioner s society in Sy Nos.697 and 698 situated at Shanigaram village, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District in the prohibited list under the Caption of Covered by Stay without there being order from the competent court of Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad; Hanumakonda District in lA No.45 of 2020 tn OS No. 16 o'f 2Q20 as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution qf lndia and Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 Io 3 herein to delete the land to an extent of an extent of an Ac.4-23 Gts in survgy No.69B and an extent of an Ac 1-16 Gts in Sy.No.697 situated at Shanigaram village, Hanumakonda District in the prohibited list. t' |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Qourt may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein to delete the land to an extent of Ac.4- 23gts in Sy.No.69B and an extent of an Ac. I-16 Gts in SY.No.697 situated at Shanigaram village, Kamalapoor lvlandal, Hanumakonda District in the prohibited list pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : - The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2489 of 2O25 ORDER: This writ petition has been liled seeking the following prayer: "..pleased to issue a writ order or direction more.particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the Respondent Nos.l to 3 herein including the land of the petitioner's society in Sy.Nos.697 and 698 situated at Shanigaram village, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District in the prohibited list under the Caption of Covered by Stay without there being order from the competent courl of Junior Civil Judge at l{uzurabad, Hanumakonda Di.etrict in I.A.No.45 of 2020 in O.S.No. I 6 of 2020 as illegal orbitrary, void ab initio and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution oJ India and Principles of natural justice and consequenlly, direct the Respondenl Nos.l to 3 heretn to delete the land to an extent of Ac.423 Gts in survey No.698 and an extent of an Ac.l 16 Gts in Sy.No.697 situated al Shanigaram village Hanumakonda District in the prohibited list... "

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner by name Geeta Paarishramika Sahakara Sangam represented by its President, claims to be the owner of the said lands which were purchased vide document No. 16141 of \984 dated 19.09.1984 from its origina-l owners. Thereafter, the name of the societSz was mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner submits that the said lands were purchased for the bene{it of the all the members of the society who are toddy tappers and eaking out their lives. It appears that some parties at t_ire instance of respondent Nos.4 to t have instituted a suit in O.S.No. 16 of 2O2O on 2 the file of learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, Hanumakonda District seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.39 guntas in Sy.Nos.697 and 698 i.e., subject property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner society is part5z to the suit liled for perpetual injunction, however, no orders have been passed. Learned counsel has referred to the prohibited list which has been notilied by virtue of order passed in LA.No.45 of 2O2O in O.S.No. 16 of 2O2O dated 22.O2.2O2O on the h1e of learned Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, wherein the subject property to an extent ol Ac.4.23 (A) in Sy.No.698 and Ac.1.16 (A) in Sy.No.697 has been placed in the prohibited list. Learned counsel further submits that only I.A was liled and no orders restraining a.lienation of the subject property has been Il1ed. Learned counsel further submits that when there is no order restraining the subject property, the Sub- Registrar ought not to have placed the subject property in the prohibited list. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited and others V. Government of Andhra Pradesh held that if any person is aggrieved by the action of the respondents they may be permitted to make representation under Section 22 (4) and the relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder, for better understanding of the case: "29. It was further held that sub-section (4) of Section 22A of tr,e Act provides a remedy to arl aggrieved party to J approach the State Government for deletion of his property from tJle notification. It has further been held that if aly such application is made, the competent authority has to a,fford an opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to produce materials/documents in support of such a claim. The claim made by an aggrieved person has to be dealt with by a speaking order. It has further been held that in case such an application is made under Section 224(4) of the Act, the same has to be decided within a period of three months. It has also been held that the mechanism provided under Section 22h(41 of tL,e Act sha,ll not preclude the parties to fi1e any other appropriate proceeding, including civil suit, for similar or appropriate relief."

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would make appropriate representation brining all the facts and their grievance before the Sub-Registrar.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sub-Registrar/ respondent authorities and make appropriate representation within a period ol one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, thereafter, upon furnishing such representation by the petitioner the Sub-Registra-r/respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders by putting the petitioner and all affected parties including the parties to the above suit on notice and after granting them an opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that the Sub- t I \ I 1 4 Registrar/respondent authorities sha11 peruse the orders of the learned trial Court in O.S.No. 16 of 2O2O on the irie of learned Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad while deciding the representatior-i if any, frled by I the petitioner. 6 Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. t .l To '1 The secretary, (Revenue //TRUE COPY// SD/.A,V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER .DepartmentxRegistration), At secretariat Buirdings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Tahsildar, Kamalapoor Mandal, Hanumakonda District. 3. The Sub-Regrstrar. Bheemadevarapally, Hanumakonda Distric!. 4 Tyro CQs to Gp FOR STAMPS AND F{EG|STRATIoN ,High Court for the I 9n" !Q !o Snt S CHALAPATHT RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies State of Telangana. [OUT] sA BS I d, .1 G I;,

16. 1E APR * (_.l i.l EO o :a !) HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 a ORDER WP.No.2489 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. rhy {