The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. District.

2. Vivekavardhini Gurukula Vklyalayam and Mandal, Warangal District, Rep. Jalagam Mohan Rao S/o Veeraiah, Mandal, Warangal Distric{. .No. 1628/84) by its Secretary Sri vilhge and , Warangal , Mulugu 58 years, Fl/o Mulugu village and

1. The Govemment of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Adminislration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Warangal. 4. The Joint Directorof School Education, Warangal. 5. The District Educational Officer, Warangal. 6. The Joint Collecbr, Warangal. 7. The Revenue Divisional O,fftcer, Muh.rgu, Warangal District. 8. The Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court nuy be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direcl'ron more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned prooeedings of the District collector, warangal vide Rc.No.E2t84g5t2}O2 dated 16-1-2O13 requesting the Respondent No.5 to withdraw any permission to the 2nd petitioner school, so that the school may not take any fresh admissions for the coming academic year against the true intent of contents of the, letter of the 2nd Respondent addressed vide cclAs Lr.No.BB3/102212:.007 daled 19-4-2012 addressed to the lstRespondent without any notice, withotft any valid reasons, even though the alienation proposals sent by the Respondent No.3 in favour of petitioners are still pending on the file of 1st Respondent herein as arbitrary, unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of In<tia and also right to education of the children who are prosecuting the education petitioner No.2 school and set aside the same' Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstancEs stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be'pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings of the District collector, warangal vide Rc.No.E2l849 5l2t)O2 daled 16-1-2013 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition' 3 o I n

1. The Joint E)irector of School Education, Warangal. 2. fhe District Educational Officer, Warangal. 't. Mvekavardhini Educational and Mandal, Wara Rao S/o Veeraiah, Warangal District.

2. Vivekavardhini Gurukula and Mandal, ( ar, Mulugu and Manderl, Warangal District, Jalagam Mohan Rao S/o Veeraiah aged 58 years, FUo Multtgu Mandal Warangal District.

3. The Goventment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-

4. The Ghief commissionerof Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5. The Districl Collector, Warangal. 6. The Joint Oollector, Warangal. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Mulugu, Warangal District.

8. The Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District. (R3 to R8 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDE NTS petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affkJavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.20.9.2013 granted in WPMP.No. 10438 of 2013 in WP.No. 8357 of 2013 and dismiss the Writ Petition in the interestof iustice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL Gounsel for the Respondents No.l to 3 & 6 to 8: AGP FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HI'IT'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA:gfi NARAYAITA ALISHETTT WRIT PETITION No.8357 of 2O13 ORI'ER This writ petition is liled challenging the proceedings vide RC.No.E2l849512OO2, dated 16.O1.2O13 issued by the respondent No.3 requesting r€spondent No.S to withdraw the permission granted to petitioner No.2, as arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of Articles 14 and 2L of tJre Constitution of India.

2. Heard Siri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionenr and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. tearned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner No. 1 -Vivekavardhini Educational Society, registered under the provisions of the AP $A) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli vide Registration ltlo.L628 /84, has established petitioner No.2-Vivekavardhini Gurukula Victyalayam (High School) with residential accommodation, mainly for the purpose of imparting education in the tribal area for upliftment of r>hildren of tribal people. The petitioner had purchased land admeasuring ,,{,c.4.O3 guntas in Sy.No.837 /39, 837 /30, 837 /25, gg7 124 at Mulugu Village and Mandal (for short 'subject land') under simple sale deeds dated 24.05.1984, 24.06. 1985 and 21.O5. 1996 from Nalubala Sarangam, M:tdula Durgaiah and Bandaru Saramma, respectively, for valid consideration, and constructed school building after duly obtaining permission. R:titioner No. I obtained recognition from Government and 2 established primary school in the year 1985-1986 which was subsequently upgraded to a High School and recognition was renewed from 2OLL-2OL2 to 2OL8-2OL9.

4. karned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the year 1993, the then Mandat Revenue Officer interfered with the operation of school stating that tl:e lands where the petitioner was running the school are assigned land and was assigned to landless poor persons. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 and submitted application dated

23.07.1993 requesting to consider his case for alienation of land on payment of market value in the interest of tribal children who are bein8 imparted education in the school and Respondent No.3 directed t]re Respondent No.8 to enquire into the matter and submit report. Accordingly, the Respondent No.8 after causing enquiry had submitted a report dated 16.1 1.1993. However, neither Respondent No.3 nor Respondent No.7 initiated any proceedings pursuant thereto.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the year 1996, Respondent No.7 and Respondent No.8 have recommended for allotment of the subject land to the petitioner No.l- society on payment of market value after cancellation of pattas granted in favour of origina! assignees. However, as there was no further progress, the petitioner submitted representation dated 28.O3.2OO5 to the Government. Basing on the said representation, Respondent No.7, directed Respondent No.8 to cause an enquiry once again and submit a 3 report. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Offrcer issued Form-I notice dated 1O.O9.rlOO5 and petitioner subrtritted explanation stating that he was a bonalide purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration and has been in poss:ssion and enjo5rment of the subject Land from 1984-1985 onwards; ancl tl-rat t]re subject land is not frt for cultivation. However, ttre Mandal Revenue OIIicer passed resumption order vide proceedings No.B/a6aL/9:3, dated 10.03.2006 under the provisions of AP Assigned La.nds (Prohibition of Ttansfers) Act, 1977. karned Senior Counsel for petitioner further submitted that though, the srid nesumption order was not challenged by the assignees, in view of the represbntation submitted by the petitioner to the Government on 28.03.2005, the Respondent No.3 again called for report from Respondent No.8 and has submitted a report vide RC.No.B/4641/93, dated 18.03.2006 to the Respondenr No.7 recommendinti alienation of subject land to an extent of Ac.4.O3 guntas on market value, and the Respondent No.3 has also recommended for alienation of subject land his letter dated 19 .OS.2OO7 . However, respondent No.2 submitted a report dated, 19.O4.2O12 stating that in view of stay order passed in WP.No.1939 of 2OO9 dated 06.O4.20O9, the alienation of lands cannot be considered till disposal of the said Writ Petition and the District Collector addressed letter vide RC.No.E2/8495 / 2OO2, dated 16.O 1.2O 13, requesting respondent No.S to withdraw any permission granted to petitioner No.2, so that the school cannot take ary fresh admissions for the coming academic year, without considering the fact that the WP.No.1939 of 2OO9 was disposed of on 4

24.O8.2012.

6. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed present writ petition and this Court vide order dated 2O.O3.2OL3 suspended the impugned proceedings.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submits that apart from addressing impugned letter dated 16.01.2013, tJle respondent No.3 has addressed another letter on the s€une day i.e. L6.OL.2OL3, directing respondent No.8 to get the school premises vacated by the end of academic year 2Ol2-2O13. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioners frled WP.No.8348 of 2013 and the same was disposed of on O3.O4.2O13, permitting tl e petitioner to submit fresh representation within a period of ten days to respondent No.l therein, seeking allotment of subject land and the respondent No.l was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with [aw, including the order of the Division Bench in WP.Nos.1939 and f 6700 of 2OO9 dated

24.O8.20L2.

8. In accordance with the orders passed in WP.No.8348 of 2O13, the petitioner submitted representation dated O8.O4.2O13 to the Government, a however, the same was not considered and petitioner was constrained to frle WP.No.26837 of 2O25 and the said writ petition was disposed of on LO.O9.2O25 directing the respondent No.l therein to consider the representation dated O8.O4.2O13 submitted by the petitioners and pass E-EF7 / 5 appropriate ()rders, in accordance with law, within a period of 3O days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

9. karnerl Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submits that in view of the Cisposal of WP.No.26837 of 2025, no further orders are required to be: passed in the present writ petition. lO. [rarnect Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that in view of order dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court in wP.No.26837 of 2025, respondent No.1 would consider the representation dated O8.04.12O13 and pass appropriate orders by duly taking into consideration tl're relevant facts, in accordance with law, and as such no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

11. considering the aforesaid submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, takirrg into consideration the orders dated 10.o9.2025 passed in WP.No.26837 of 2025, tJre cause in the writ petition does not survive.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellarreous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To ,,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to liRl V. RAVI KTRAN RAO, Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at PUCI Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CCs t,) GP for Education, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT 5t ctwf& SHE{ B1 t.q l|, m1f, * { * E WP.No.8357 of 2013 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION ,e L @