The High Court · 2025

Petition under Artrcle 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 an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.2 herein in threatening the Petitioner to d ispossess/interfere from the land admeasuring Ac.01.02 Gts in Sy.No.1090/4 situated at Dudyal Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana state without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, illegal exercise of powers, u n constitutiona I and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the official Respondents more particularly the Respondent No 2 herein not to d ispossess/interfere with the peaceful possession and enloyment of Petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.01.02 Gts in Sy.No 1090/A situated at Dudyal Village Et Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the orcumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the Hrgh iourt may be pleased to direct the official Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.2 herein not to d ispossess/interfe re with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Petitioner land admeasuring Ac.01 02 Gts in Sy.No 1090/4 situated at Dudyal Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana State pending disposal af the above writ Pptition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State Of Telangana, Represented Development, Dr B R Ambedkar Hyderabad. Telangana State-500022. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Telangana Secretariat, Khairtabad,

2. The Tahsildar Dudyal Mandal, Vikarabad District, Tetangana State 3. The Revenue Drvisional Officer, Tandur Division, Vikarabad Telangana State District,

4. The District Collector. Vikarabad District, Telangana St:rte AND 1 K. Bala GoLrd S/o Eshwaraiah, Agriculture, Resrdent of H.No.4-98, Vikarabad Distrrct. Telangana State ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS Aged about 35 years, Occupation. Hasnabad Village, Dudyal Mandal,

2. IMORA HANUN/ANTHU, Son of Basappa, Aged about 60 years, Resident of H.No 2-66, Hasnabad Village, Dudyal It/andal. Vikarabad District, Telangana State. ..RESPOND.ENT/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (Respondent No 2 is not necessary party to this petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coun may be pleased to -' vacate the intertm order dl. ?6.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.4999 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for Respondents: SRI D.V.CHALAPATHY RAO, GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.4999 of2024 ORDER This wr-it petition is filed seeking to declart: the action of respondent No.12 in threatening the petitioner to dispossess from the land admcasuring Ac.1.02 gts., in Sy.No. 109O,/A, situated at Dudyal Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District, without issuing any notice and u'ithout follou'ing due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and for-o[her appropriate reliefs.

2. Consid,'red [he submissions of the learned counsel for the respective pat-ties and perused the record It is stzrl,ed t hat the petitioner is the absolutr: owner and 3. possessor ol the land admeasuring Ac.1.OiZ gts., in Sy.No.1O90/A, situated at Dudyal Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District (hereinaftcr referred as 'subject propertyJ. It is further stated that as respondetlt No.5 was a landless poor, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, through Ma-nctal Revenue Officer, Bomrztspct, has issued hnal Patta Cerlihcate uide Proceedings No.Bi 1613/92, dated 25.1O.1992, allotting the land to an exlcnt of Ac.2.18 gts., in Sy.No. 1090, situated at Dudyal Village. It is further stated that the name of the assignee ) was recorded in the revenue records and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is further stated that the petitioner herein, being the landless poor person, purchased the subject property from respondent No.S by virtue of an unregistered sale deed dated 01.O1.2007 on sale consideration of Rs.24,O00/- and took possession of the said property. It is further stated that while the petitioner was in possession of the subject property, respondent No.S, again sold the subject property to one Mr. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Krishna, uide sale deed bearing Document No.34 14 of 2OO9, dated 06.07.2009 and behind the back of the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kumar obtained Dharani pattadar passbook and got his name entered in ROR proceedings. It is further stated that since the possession was not delivered, Mr. Ravi Kumar demanded respondent No.5 for return of sale consideration and respondent No.5 has returned the sale consideration to Mr. Ravi Kumar by way of a Deed of Cancellation dated 02. 1 1.2018. Subsequently, respondent No.5 executed another unregistered sale deed dated .O7.12.2O19 in favour of the petitioner, conhrming the unregistered sale deed dated 01.01.2007. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 being the competent authority, having come to know that the subject property was transferred contrar5r to the provisions 3 iof the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibrtion of Transfers) Act, 7977 (for short, 'thc Act') and Rules made thereunder, has isstred Shorv Cause Notices uide Proceedings No.B/52/2024 in Form-l and Form-ll, dated 30.01.2024 to respondent No.S and Mr. Ravi Kumar- It is further stated that when t.he petitioner enquired through respondent No.5, respondent No.5 stated that he and Mr. Ravi Kumar were served with the Notices uide I Proceedings No.Bl52l2024 in Form-l and Forrn-[[, dated 3O.Ol .2024 and O2.O2.2O24 ard further stated that he and Mr. Ravi Kumar submitted reply to respondent No.2 on .

15.O2 .2024 statir-rg the aforemcntioned facts. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without preceding by any enquiry,, are making efforts to dispossess him from the subjecl property, which action constraLned him to approach this L'ourt by filing this writ petition. 4, Learned counsel for the petitioner has sutrmitted that dfter receipt of notice, respondent No.5 has hled reply, rvherein, it is stated that the land admeasuring Ac.2.18 gts., in Sy.No.1090, sitr,rated at Dudyal Village, was allotted lo initr, uide Proceedings No.B/ 1613/92, dated 25.1O.1992. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has purchased t)-re subject property from him under unregistered sale deed dated * I 4 (:

01.01.2007. Further, he executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3414 of 2009, dated 06.07.2009 in favour of Mr.Ravi Kumar in respect of the very same land and the same was cancelled by way of a Deed of Cancellation dated

02.tr.2018

5. Sri D.V. Chalapathy Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, has vehemently contended that the assignees are not entitled to alienate the property contrary to the policy enunciated by the State Governrnent uide G.O.Ms.No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958.

6. A careful reading of the contents of the writ affidavit and the reply submitted by respondent No.S dated 75.02.2024 would reveal that admittedly, the nature of the lands is classified in the revenue records as assigned lands. The State, with a laudable object for upliftment of the backward classes and the scheduled castes communities on par with the well developed communities, while exercising powers under the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli, has enunciated a policy uide G.O.Ms.No.14O6, dated 25.O7.1958 and as per the said policy, the assignees are entitled to cultivate the lands within three years for eking out their livelihood and the assignees are not having any right to alienate the property, I 5 except heritable rights. It would further reveal that the original assignee has disposed of the subject property in favour of the petitioner b1, 1i,2y of an unregistered sale deed dated Ol.Ol.2OO7 and further, sold the very same subject properly to Mr. Ravi Kumar by u'ay of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3414 of il0o9, dated 06.07 .2009, which was subsequently cancelled. The transferee has also submitted an r:xplanation to the shorv cause notice issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner has set up a case that he has purchased the sub.icct property under sada bainama and he is now contesting th.e matter that no notice has becn issued. Admittedly, there rrt'c regisLercd transactions rer:orded by way of sale deed and cancellation deed, which u,ould pima facie reveals that there are transactions ,:rontrary to the Act, 1977 for disentitling to claim any rights over the subject property. In addition to the above, it is stated that the petitioner was never in possession of the subject land zir.rd the same is covered by a structurt: of rice mill constructed bv Mr. Ravi Kumar, who alleged to havr: purchased the subject property under registered sale deed. Admittedly, in this case, neither the assignee nor the transferee of the subject property has utilized the lands for agricultural purpose, I ( 6 therefore, on this ground, neither the petitioner nor Mr' Ravi Kumar is entitled for granting any relief' In view of the above, since the petitioner failed to 7. establish that there are procedural irregularities on the part of the official respondents in resumption of the subject lands' he has not made out any case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of Lhe Constitution of India'

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being devoid of merits' is dismissed. However, since it is stated that the petitioner is a land less poor person, he is permitted to make an appropriate application on the file of the District Collector and if he satisfies all the eligibility criteria, the District Collector may consider his case in accordance with law' Asasequel,themiscellaneouspetitionspending'ifany'1' shall stand closed. No order as to costs' SD/-A. SRINIVA AR EDDY GISTRAR ASSISTANT ,/TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI V RAIr/CHANDER GOUD' Advocate [OPUCI TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

3. Two CD CoPies BSK BS i ,] !l HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER WP.No.4999 of 2024 :, i ..i / ( t^ q f o 2 2 Airr 2u5 i).f ]i D f" PrlT( '.i : + DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,< .(\'\ \ \