K. Shobha Reddy v. '1. The State of felangana

..FIESPoNDENTS petitien under a nicle 2?6 of the Constitution of lndia pral,ing that in the circumstances stared in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an al,trrropriatq writ, order or direction mpre parlicr rarry one in the nature ef Mandamus ,1t:cr6ring the action Qf the official gesponcents in not taking action AgainQt the i l,egal alienatien and activity qeins carrig J oul by the Respondent Nos.11 c 1{ o1 beheqt of Respondent No.7, cn lands i.e., rn Sy NoS.141lA/1 14 4tN2t111t1,141tN2l1t1l2,141tAlkl?t1t1t1,14. tAt2t1t2t1t1t2, 141lAl2l1l2l1l.2. 14111 l2-l 11212 to an extenl of A9 7-10 gts,, srtu;rted at Bajipur village, ThimmaJipet 'Vlandar, Nagar[<arngol pistrict, ip spile r>f interim orders passed in I {. ry6, 9917 tDz i in o s. rlg .430t?021 in favour of pgtiticner as arbitrary, illegal and viqlative of Arlicle 14,21 and 3004 of the constitutron ,rf lndia and in violatiol of principles Qf natural tUslice q!g cAnsequentty dirgL:l th9 qff;6;r1 respondents tq not to e ntertain any lransfer qnd arsg not to a o\r'/ rn,,, devgropmBnt activity on the sarcl lanr s lA NO: { OF 2024 Petiti6FnOal S.;p1ien 151 gpe prayi4g that in lhg crrc*ms;ta.tces stated in the affi(avit filqd in $upaort of the petition, thQ hrigh coufl may be rreased to direct the official lEflpondents t9 stap deyelopmerlt activity gprried out p1,, Rssp6n6..1 Nos l1 to 14 on asrricutturat lEO4s in gy Nos. 141lAl1 . 1:I14tN2t1t1t1, 141tAt2l1/1t2, 141/Nz/:'l1t1t1, 141tAtzt1t2l1l.1t2, 1!1tN2t1t2t.U2,, 141tAtzt1t2t2 to an extent qf Ac7- 1 9 gts . situated at Bajipur viilage, Thinrrralipet Mandar, NagarkarnoOl District p :rrding outgome of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.S{l SANTeSH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for tfie Resporrdent Nos. 5 to 14: _ The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2524 of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: ". . . .to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more porticularlg one in the nature of Mandamus declaing the action of the olficial Respondents in not taking action agoinst the illegal alienation and actiuitg being carned out by tlrc respondent Nos.1 1 to 14 on behest of Respondent No.7 on lands i.e., in Sa.Nos.141/A/ 1, 1414/A/2/ 1/ 1/ 1, 141/A/2/ 1/ 1/2, 141/A/2/2/1/1/ 1, 141/A/2/ 1/2/ 1/ 1/2, 141/A/2/ 1/2/ 1/2, 141/A/2/1/2/2 to an extent of Ac.7.19 gts situoted at Bajipur Villoge, Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkarnool District in spite, of inteim orders passed in IA No.9O1/2O21 in OS No.43O/2021 in fauour of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and uiolatiue of Articles 14, 21 and 3OOA of the Constitution of India ond in uiolation of principles of naturol justice and consequentlg direct the official respondents to not to entertain ang transfer and also not to allou,t ang deuelopment actiuitg on the said lands..-."

2. It is stated that thc petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.7-19 guntas in Sy.Nos.l4l/Al I, t4t I Al2 I t I t I r, t4t I Al2 I t I r 12, ),41 / Al2 I 2 I I I 1 I r, 14t I Al2l 1l2l 1l tl2, t4rl Al2l 1l2l rl2 and, 14tl A.l2/ 11212 situated at Bajipur Village, Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkarnool District (hereinafter referred as "subject property"). It is further stated that the subject property originally belonged to her father-in-1aw, late Sri K. Ramachandra Rcddy, who, acquired the lands in Sy.Nos.4 and 141 as per the family settlerrrent dated 22.O3. i99 1. It is stated that during his lifetime, said Ramachandra Reddy executed a Will dated 2

19.O 1.2OO3 beqr eathing the lands in Sy.No.4 to the pe,itioner,s \ elder son (Re spor clent No.6) and Sy.No.141 to her youngtr son, late K. Varun Reddt'. vho was a minor and suffering with ep,il.-p;1,21 ths time. It is flrth )i' stated that after the death of Ra;na chandra Reddy, the r-r:spc r dent No.4 vide proceedings No.A/ 76 O I 2006_07 dated 23.1O..2Ct0i, r.r'rongly mutated the lands in Sr,.Nos 4 tr-rd 141 equally in fa'our cf all sons. Challenging the same, ther tet itioner,s sons hled an appr,zLl before the respondent No.3, which u:rs allowed vide order dated'.D.02.2016, directing to conduct cle nun:nquiry. The respondent, I o.3, after conducting enquiry, passe C or ders on

03.1O.2016 recogruzing the right of petitioner,s sons to the txtent o[ [heir re specti,r'(. : LLares under the Will. It is stated tLLat during pendency of app:al filed by Respondent No.7, the lret.tioner,s younger son Varu I Reddy passed away on O2.O3.2OI7 :rnc1 without bringing his k:gal heirs on record, Respondent No.6 cortp.omised the matter trefor c the respondent No-3 on 20.O5..,'O.7 and relinquished righ s. over the lands in Sy.No. 14 1 in f a, ,our of Respondents 7 an, I 8. It is further stated that late Varun Ile<ldy l-rad executed a registe: e d Will dated 20.O4.2016 in petitioner,s favour in respect of S1..N,;. 1 ,1 1 Suppressing the said fact, Respon 1e rt No.6 manipulated cc,m n omise proceedings as if she has agr,:ed for mutation of thr: lar Lrls in respect of lands in Sy.No. 14 1 . ()rres lioning " J the same, it is stated that the petitioner hled a revision before the Joint Collector, and the same was transferred to the Special Tribunai and renumbered as STIDI/39 12O21. The Tribunal, without conducting any enquiry, dismissed the case stating that the nature of the case is a civil dispute. It is stated that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.43O of 2O2l on the {ile of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkarnool, against the respondent Nos.S to 10 herein and others seeking declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the subject property. In the said suit, the trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 in I.A.No.901 ol ZOZ| granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 from alienating the subject property. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of said injunction order dated O9.O8.2O23, the respondent Nos.6 to 1O aiienated part of the subject property in favour of respondent Nos.ll to 14 and on coming to know the same, she hled suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of respondent Nos. I I to 14. While the matter stood thus, the respondent Nos. 11 to 14 at the behest of respondent No.7 started developing the lands. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though she submitted representations dated 1O.O1.2O24 bringing to notice of respondent Nos.2 to 4 about the injunction order granted by the civil Court and requested not to 4 entertain an.F fu-t her alienations in respect of the sutrj,:ct property and to previ:rn the unofficial respondents from < ar ying on developmenr,a. a< tivities over the subject property, till date ro action has been takr t. lcnce the writ petition.

3. On O2.Ct2. l(124, this Court issued notice to the re ipondent Nos.5 to 1,1 at cl also permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to tak, ' out personal notice. A memo dated 2r o2.2o24 enclosing the Pos trl track reports were fiied by the learred counsel for the petiti()nc r. evidencing that notices were se.v:d on the respondent Nos.l to 14. Inspite of service of notice, the.e is no representation on lrehalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 14.

4. As seen. frc rt the material placed on record, the p:titroner has filed a s,ir 'i re o-S.No.430 or 2o2r on the fire of II Aciditional Junior Civil Judg r. Nagarkarnool, against the responder.: t. I,,los.5 to 10 herein anrl tthers seeking declaration and conserluential injunction in rcsp.ect of the subject property. Along with t he said suit, the petitir:,er has filed I.A.No.9O 1 of 2O2l under Orrler XXXX Rule 1 and 2t re r:1 with Section 1 5 1 of CPC seeking to grant injunction restrai; ring the respondent Nos.5 to 10 hr.reir, their agents or any otht r person claiming through them frorrL rli,:nating the subject properry or creating any third part5r interest in fa rour of third parties, tilt t r.-- clisposal of the suit. The said I.A.i,lo.901 of 5 2021 was ailowed by the trial Court vide order dated O9.08.2O23 granting interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. As pe r Standing Order No.219 dated 1O.O3.201O issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Government of Telangana, if any court order restraining alienation of property is brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority would be estopped from going ahead with registration. The petitioner claims to have submitted a t I representation dated 10.01.2024 to the respondent Nos.2 to 4, informing them about the aforesaid injunction order and requesting not to entertain any further alienation or development activity in respect of the subject property. However, despite the same, no steps have been taken by the official respondents to prevent such transactions or development works. If such actions are allowed to continue, it would amount to violation of the court orders and would prejudice the rights of the petitioner.

5. In view of the above circumstances, the official respondents are directed not to entertain or process any registrations or sale transactions in respect of the subject property covered under O.S.No.430 of 2027 pending on the Iile of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkarnool, until the injunction order dated 09.Oa.2O23 6 passed in LA.l\:.901 of 2O2l is either vacatecl or th: suit is disposed of in ac :trdance r,r,ith law. 6 With ttrr a )(rve observations, this writ petition is d sp osed of As a seque , the miscellaneous petitions pencling. rl-e ny, shall stand closed. No trder as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DE['UTY REGISTRAR ,.,/ la,.' SEC TIOTtbFFICER To,

1. Principal Secre erry, Revenue Qgpartnlent, Secretariat, Hydr_.ra,bad, 5OoO6Q, lhe State 6f Te :rngana.

2. The Qiskict Col eqtor, NagarkUr:nool Diskict, Telangana. 3 The Beyenue D risrpnal Offrcer, Bajipuragr VillEgq, fhimmalipF,t Mandat, Nagarkurnoot D strict, Telangan4 fahsildar Erajipuram ViIage, Thippajipqt ManQqt tt?garkr-.rrnoot District, ]he Jglangp4a

3." :! to sBl I sAt sANrgQtJ Advpcate tQeugl Tyvo 99: to gP =C8 REVENTJE, High Court lor the Stare of Ter [ourl Two GQ Copies angana 4 5 6 7 BGS SS HIGH COURT DATED: 15104.12025 ORDER WP.No.2524 of 202 /,,'f ql; G 9 + Ll L{1 ,,-'-11 ,.t- - : J.-,, \\f =$ $* \ )t .-:l' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS LJ'