High Court · 2025

The Commissioner, Hyderabqd Metropolitan Development Aqthority (HMDA) Swarna Jayanti Complex, ganjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd, Srinivasa Nqgar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500082 The Commissioner, Pocharam Municipality, Iulunicipal Office, Pocharam Ghatkesar Mandal, tvledchal-fvlalkajgiri District, Telangana - 500088 The District Collector, lntegrated District Office Complexes, Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500078 Tfe Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO1, RDO Office Keesara Division, Medchal- l/alkajgiri District, Keesara, Secunderabad, Telangana 501 301 lVlandql Revenue Officer (MRO), lvl RO Office, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri Diskict, Telangana - 501301 ...RESPONDENTS 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 issLre rvr t of mandamus against the action of Respondent No. 2 to B in non-considerrin g the representation of the petitioner datecl ' 0-02-2025 and non-initiating to exerlpt the Petitioner's plots from the restricted /l:,roh ibited list is highly illegal, arbitrary. u nco nstitution al, unjust, and in violatic,n of Principles of Natural Justice ard violation oi Articles 14, 19,21 and 300 A of ihe Constitution of lnd ia. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARANAM RAJESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent l!o.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G,MADHUSUDHAN REDDTY, sp FoR GHMC counsel for the Respondent frlo.3: sRl v.NARASIMHA GouD, sct FoR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SBI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.S tq 9: GP FqR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORQER i. _: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6754 of 2O25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action respondent Nos.2 to 8 in non-consideration of the t, I representation of the petitioners dated 1O.O2.2O25 for not empting the plots of the petitioners from the stricted/prohibited list as e illegal, arbitrary, Iunconstitutional and violation of principles of natural I justice and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed for other appropriate reliefs. ! I I

2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for I Iq e respective parties and perused the record. It is stated that petitioner No.l is the owner and Ip ossessor of plot Nos.732 and 733 in Sy.No.56 situated at I Narapally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy I District, having purchased under the Registered Sale Deed document No.2858/ 1987 dated 26.O3.1987 and r ,1 .l 2 CVB&J \\,P 6754 2025 a_-l petitioner No.2 is the owner and possessel 6,f plot Nos.736 and 737 in Sy.No.56 situated at Narapai$' Village, Ghatkes,l' Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist:ict, having purchas,:d under the Registered Sale Deed tide' document No.977,t 1!)87 dated 29.O1.PA7. It is further r;tated that I since th: clate of purchase, the petitioners ha ize been in I I posse,ssirrL and enjoyment of the subject plots It is the I case of l.he petitioners that when they cam€r to know that I the sr.rb.j,:ct plots were included in the restrictt:d,'prohibited list d,re to certain disputes, they made a rcpresentation dated 10,02.2025 to the respondents to exempt the said i plots frorr the restricted/prohibited list. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have .t-t,rt considere h i the said rr:'1>resentation till date. Hence, ths rv -it petition

4. J{a'".ing perused the material on recorcl, this coult finds that :he petitioners have not placed any locuments to sh:ou' that the agricultural land, forrtLir: g part of Sy.No.5C,, was converted to non-agricultural purpose either under tLL<; provisions of the Telangana Land. Re'venue Act \r, CVBRJ wP 6754 2025 3 17 Fasli or under the provisions of the Telangana cultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural oses) Act, 2006. Unless the said plots are converted y following the due procedure and obtained the layout 1 sued by the Gram Panchayat or by HMDA, the petitioners e not having any right to say that the subject plots are residential plots and that the respondent authorities have I illegally and arbitrarily listed the said properties as rohibited properties. In the absence of the petitioners ling any document in support of the conversion of the d and change of usage from agricultural use to non- 1 I icultural use and frling of any layout sanctioned to the aid survey numbers, there is no illegality or irregularit5r on the part of the respondents to list the sarne as prohibited property and the action of listing the subject property as i prohibited propert5r is in the larger interest of the public to l dvoid the illegal transactions over the unapproved layout. or the said reasons, the present writ petition hled by the \ :l I CVB&J \\P 6't54 202s C I 4 petitioners is misconceived and the same is liable I to bb dismi,ssel, I i I

5. ,r\ccor-<1ingly, this writ petition is disrnissied' There shall be no order as to costs. l\s er sequel, the miscellaneous petition s ltending, f any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K DEPUTY RE . AMMAJI dtsrnaR SECTIONO FICER '1, ! To, 1 2 3 4 One CC to SiRI KARANANI RAJESH KUMAR, Advocate [Ol']UC] One CC to fiRl G Iv'IADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GH[\4C [OPUC] One CC to fiRl PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL ICPUC] One CC to fiRl V NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HIVDA [O Two CCs to GFr FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High cour: for the state of Telangana at t-lYderabad [OUT] rUC] o TwoCCsto(jPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad OLITI 7 Two CD Cocies BSR 's )/ HIGH COURT DATED:05t0312025 ORDER WP.No.6754.of 2025 1r+E S L.l :\ o C) 21 tli i') . )t, * o t\r U1r', -1':i) ----r= az? ,./ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS / // 0 t ,)