Mr. Madala Sriram Bhaskar v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 the nature of Writ f Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No. 5, in including the Petitioner's property admeasuring Ac. 2-10 Gts in Sy No.75 situated at Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District in the prohibited list based on the letter issued by the Respondent No. 6 dated 2010112025 alleging the non conversion of the said land I J I ! i I I I from agriculture to no n-ag ricu rtu re/residentiar which has no basis to incrude the property in the prohibited list and despite the said rand being arready converted into NALA after payment of Rs. s0,94,481r- by the petitioner despite the same inclusion of Petitioner. property in prohibited rist in vioration of section 22_A of Registration Act '1908 and in vioration of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Honble court in [r,,i/s. rnvecta Technorogies pvt Ltd v. Govt. of Ap passed in W.A. No. 232 of 2012, dated 19- 10_2023, is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of naturar justice, and is in vioration of Articres 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia, and consequenfly direct the Respondent,s, more particurarry the Respondent No. 5, to delete the petitioners property admeasuring Ac. 2_10 Gts in sy No.75 situated at Nanakramguda viilage, seriringampaily Mandar, Rangareddy District from the prohibited list. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.fited in support of the peiitio;, inu Higt Court may O" pLr*O O" pleased to direct the Respondents, more particurirty the Respondent No. s, to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 21-02-202s a nd derete the Petitioner's property admeasuring Ac. 2-10 Gts in Sy No. 75 ritr.i"o Nana.kramguda virage, Seriringampafly Mandar, nrng"r"ooy Disirici"ir;; the "t prohibited list in the interest of justice ,nd pass such other order or orders.- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ' Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in tl.re 9ffi.dat fired in support of the p"iition, in" iign courr ma/1e prurlio ,o direct the Respondents, more particurarry the Respondent No. 5, to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 14-02-i02s and ierete tne Feiiiioner:s'"piJpe.tv admeasuring Ac. 2-10 Gts in sy No. 75 situiteo at Nanakramguda virage, serilingampally 'r14b.ndar, Rangireddy Distrrci fiom the prohibited rist in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt SAINI ARAVIND Counsel for the Respondents No.1tos : SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRl K.V.BHANU PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER t HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.5735 of 2o25 ORDER: Questioning the action of respondent No.5 in including the petitioner's propertlr admeasuring Ac.2-10 gts 1n Sy.No.75 situated at Nalakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject property) in the prohibited list based on the letter issued by respondent No.6 dated20.O7.2025 alleging the non-conversion of the said Iand from agriculture to non-agriculture wtrich hasno basis to include the propert5r in the prohibited list and despite the said land being already converted into NAI,A after pa5rment of Rs.50,94,48I/- by the petitioner is being challenged in this writ petition.

2. Tlee facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Ayesha Begum claims to be the pattadar of the subject property and her n€une was also recorded in the Khasra, Sethuwar and pahani copies. Thereafter, the subject property changed hands through the various transactions: (a) It was sold to Si Mandai Singh through a registered Sale Deed beaing Doc.No.83O of 1965, dated 23.O8.1965. (b) The said Sri Mandari Singh sold it ttt Sri Chadlauada Venkatesutar Rao and Others bg tuag of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.Nct.B31 of 1965, dated 23.08.1965- (c) Subsequentlg, Sri Chadlauada Verukateswar Rao sold the land to Si B.Anjanegulu and Si N.Appa Rao under Registered Sale Deed bearing No.5987 of 1981, dated 25.10.1981. (d) A"fter the demise of Si B.Anianegulu, the propertg utas partitioned bettueen his tuife, Smt. B.Bhulakshmi, and Si N.Appa Rao, through a Registered partition Deed No.16265 of 1993, dated 15.02.1993. By uirtue of the said partition, Smf' B.Bhulakshmi became the absolute owner of the Subject Propertg' She, in turn, sold the Subiect Propertg to Si K.Chandrashekar under Registered Sale Deed No.2O27 of 1995' dated 21.O2.1995 and. the land got mutated into the name of Si K.Chandrashekar uide mutation proceedings No.B/3136/98, dated O6-10.1998 issued bg the MRO Seilingampallg Mandal.

3. Subsequently, the said K.Chandrashekar who has purchased the subject property executed three (3) individual Agreements of SaIe cum General Power of Attorney, each for Ac.O-30 gts., in favour of M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., uide 3 registered Doc.Nos.3518/ 1999, 3519/ 1999 and 352011999 dated 22.05.1999. Subsequently, the said K.Chandrashekar sold the land to Madala Shakuntala uide tl:^ree (3) registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos. 70 19 / 2006, 7 O2O / 2006 and 7 02 | / 2006 dated 25.03.2006 and by virtue of the above three (3) sale deeds dated 25.03.2006, the grandmother of the petitioner (uiz., Madala Shakuntala) became absolute owner ald possessor of the subject property. Thereafter, the said Madala Shakuntala died on L3.O5.2O24 and she has executed her last Will deed on 7L.O4.2022 registered as Doc.No.42l2022 in the Office of Sub- Registrar, Nallapadu.

4. Subsequent to the execution of the Will deed, on

29.O4.2024, the petitioner's grandmother executed a registered Codicil uide Doc.No.84 of 2024 clai$ng that the residual clauses (paras 20, 21,22 of page 6) in the original Will shall stand modified to the effect that a1l properties not included in the Will wlthin item Nos.l to 47 shall go solely to her grandson Madala Sriram Bhaskar (i.e., the petitioner herein). Mr.L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of Will dated 11.04.2022 alongwit}r 4 Codicil dated 29.04.2024, the subject property devolved upon the petitioner and petitioner's name was mutated into the revenue records as the lawful owner of the sub-ject property. He would further submit that the petitioner also obtained NALA conversion upon payment of Rs.50,94,481 /- by way of Dharani portal, converting the subject propert5r from agricultura-l to non- agricultural use uide proceedings No.HS24OOOO5295 dated

17.ot.2025

5. The petitioner's further case is that he came to know that M/s.Janachaitanya Housing hrt., Ltd., represented by its Director Madala Suvarna Lakshmi had made a representation dated 2O.O1.2025 to the District Registrar, Moosapet, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.5 herein falsely claiming that the subject property elongs to M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Brt., Ltd., by concealing the Codicil dated 29.04.2024. Respondent No.6 also made false a-llegations in her representation regarding NALA conversion process by claiming that the subject property was not converted from agriculture to non-agriculture. Basing on the said representation, respondent No.S placed the subject property 5 under prohibitory list under section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. . 6. l,earned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this court to the prohibited properties list in the Dharani portal wherein the subject property was shown a prohibited propert5r as it is covered by Court stay. Learned senior counsel would further refer to a common judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Inaecta Technologies Priaate Limited a. State of Andhra prad,esht, wherein validity of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 190g was upheld and certain guidelines are issued. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein for ready reference: "29. It was further held that sub_sectton (4) of Section 22A of the Act prouid.es a remedg to an aggieued partg to approach the State Gouernment for deletion of his propertg from the notification. It has further been held that if ang such application is made, the competent authoritg has to afford. an opportunitg of heaing and an opportunitg to produce mateials/documents in support of such a claim. The claim made by an aggieued person has to be d.ealt ' 2024 (t) ALT 2'12 6 uith by o speaking order. It has further been held that in case such an application is made under Section 22A(4) of the Act, the same has to be decided utitlin a peiod of three months. It hos also been held that the mechanism prouided under Section 22A(4) of the Act shall not preclude the parties to file ang other appropiate proceeding, including ciuil suit, for similar or appropriate relief."

7. I.earned senior counsel would further submit that following the above guideline, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 21,.O2.2025 to respondent Nos.3 and 5 seeking for removal of the subject property from the prohibitory list.

8. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, Iearned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking a direction to respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.O2.2025 in a time bound period.

9. Mr.Bhanu Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 would submit that petitioner herein arrd the Chairman of respondent No.6 are the family members and there are some pending disputes among the family members, Apart from that the respondent No.6 made representation questioning the NALA proceedings as well as the Will deed.

10. Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appeanng on beha-lf of respondent No.3 submits that if the petitioner's representation is still pending for consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the S INC and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

11. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the record. t I

12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated

21.02.2025 for deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory properties list and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, 8 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that petitioner as well as respondent No.6 shall be given a fair opportunity of personal hearing

13. With the consent of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shali stand closed. No costs. //TRUE GOPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA M THY DEPUTY REG TRAR SECTION FFICER To, 1 ' The Secretary Stamps and Registration Department Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. fhe Commissioner and lnspector General Registration and Stam.ps, -. . - fetanoina Hvderabad Reqistration Bhavan, 4in and 5th Floor, NizamShahi RojA,"Osmangunj, M.J.Mdrket, Hyderabad, Telangana 500001

3. The District collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongarakalan Ranga Reddy District

4. The Tahsildar/MRO, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District 5. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District At Moosapet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana

6. One CC to SRI SAINI ARAVIND, Advocate lOPUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI K V.BHANU PRASAD, Advocate lOPUCl 9. Two CD Copies. BSK BS \ I HIGH COURT DATED:0 410312025 ORDER WP.No.5735 of 2025 (\( -1n--, S fAt6 ()A )s ( \, ;- \'C \ 0 2 '' ''' \ /,,:.,,\. -.. , ,i -: : -:;-:._ = , DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Xtr