The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ or order or dtrection more particular in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings vide No.B/5212024 dated 04.03.2024 issued by the 4th Respondent resuming the land belonging to the Petitioner admeasuring Ac.1.'16 guntas in sy.No.1090 of Dudyal village and Mandal, Vikarabad District and directing the sth Respondent to take possession as being illegal, arbitrary, bereft of any reasons, without application of mind and contrary to directions issued by Division Bench of this Hon'ble court in judgment reported in (2008) 5 ALT 313 and in violation of Article 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the Petitioners over the subject lands after setting aside the proceedings vide No.B,5212024 dated 04 03.2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under llectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceerl ngs vide No.Bl52l2024 dated 04.03 2024 isr;ued by the 4th Respondent and dirrrct the Respondents not to interfere witlr the peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the Petitioneis over th,l subject lands and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to v3cate the interim order dl. 15.03.2024 passed in W P.No.700,1 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petit c,n Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MAMIDI AVINASH REDDY Counsel for Respondents: SRI D.V.CHALAPATHY RAO, GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY IIIRIT PETITION No.7OO4 of 2o24 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking ' to declare the proceedings uide No.Bl52l2O24, dated 04.03.2024 issued by respondent No.4 resuming the land belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 1.16 gts., in Sy.No.1O9O, situated at Dudyal Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District and directing respondent No.S to take possession as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs. i;

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. 1. 16 gts., in Sy.No.1090, situated at Dudyal Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District (hereinafter referred as 'subject property'). It is further stated that as respondent No.5 was a landless poor, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, through Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Bomraspet, has issued hnal Patta Certificate uide Proceedings No.B/ 1613/92, dated 25.10.1992, allotting the land to an extent of Ac.2.18 gts., in Sy.No. 1090, situated at Dudyal Village. 2 It is further stated that the name of the assignee was recorded in the reve:rue records and the revenue authorities rave also issued pattirrlar passbooks and title deeds. It is furtl Ler stated that out of 'he said extent of Ac.2.18 gts., the petitior er herein along u.ith ber husband, has purchased an exLent cf Ac.1.16 gts., uide rci4'stered sale deed bearing Document No.272412OO8, dated 25.09,120O8 and the name of her husband was re corded in the revenue records and was issued pattadar passb roks and title deeds. It is further stated that after demise of her -rusband, the subjcct lend was mutated in favour of her in thr revenue records. It r:; further stated that one B. Madan Moha r, rvho is stranger hasr given a complaint dated 29.O1.2024 to re ;pondent No.4 a11eging, that the vendor of the petitioner has illegally mutaled the land to an extent of Ac.2.18 gts., in Sy_No.1O9O in his name ani later on tralsferred in favour of the petiticner and as such, r()(luested to resume the land in favou. of the govemment. The case of the petitioner is that basin g on the said complaint, respondent No.4 issued Form-l noti< e to the vendor of th,: petitioner and Form-II to the petrtioner a nd other purchaser 1c, submit their explanation with clocr mentary evidence an<l the petitioner has also submitted a retrjly clateal 13.02.2024. 'l'he grievance of the petitioner is that imr rediately i1 t ! I r ,, 6 3 after filing respondent of the repiy within the stipulated time' the No.Bl52l2024, dated No.4, uide Proceedings directed for resumPtion of land admeasuring

04.o2.2024 Ac.2.l8 gts., in Sy'No' 109O' in favour of the taking over possession' Aggrieved thereby' the present writ petition has been fltled' -.government l Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 4 after receipt of notice, the petitioner has filed reply stating that her vendor was the absolute owner and possessor of land purchased bY her and his name was also reflecting in the revenue records and that she is the bonafide purchaser of the property and the said property cannot be treated as assigned land and the provisions of the Telangana State Assigned Lands 1977 are not applicable to the (Prohibition of Transfer) Act' subject land. learned Government Pleader for 5. Sri D.V. ChalaPathY Rao' Revenue, has vehemently contended that the assignees are not to the PolicY entitled to alienate the property contrary enunciated by the State Govern rrrerrt uide G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.O7.1958' 4

6. A car,::ul reading of the contents of the r.vrit affiCavit and the reply submitted by the petitioner r.l.ould re.,eal that admittcdly, thc nature of the lands is classified in thr: revenue records as asrsigned lands. The State, with a laudable tbject for upliftmcnt ol the backward classes and the scheclul:d castes communitier; on par with the well developed communit,es, whiie exercising p)wers under the provisions of the Telangr na Land Revenue A<:1., 1317 fasli, has enunciated a policy uide G.O.Ms.No.1206, dated 25.07.19Sg and as per the sa:d policy, the assignec s are entitled to cultivate the lands u,itl in three years for ek ng out their livelihood and the assignees are not having any light to alienate the property, except .reritable rights.

7. [n vie.r of the above, since the petitioner Ililed to establish that there are procedural irregularities on thr: part of respondent I o.4 in resumption of the subject lancl, th s Court does not \.\.arrant any interference under Article 22( of the Constitution,rl India.

8. Accordir.gly, this Writ petition, being devoid of n: erits, is dismissed. H,)!vever, since it is stated that the petitiorrer is a land less poor person, he is permitted to make an app.opriate application or the file of the District Collector and if he I ratislies I l I I 5 al1 the eligibility criteria, the District Collector may consider his case in accordance with law As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/-A. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT RE A EDDY TRAR ,,TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFTC ER Tb, l One CC to SRI tVlAMlDl AVINASH REDDY' Advocate tOPUCl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana Iour]

3. Two CD CoPies' BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 \ I ) ) ORDER WP.No.7004 of 2024 (

4. o 1HE S I-,I "6- 2 2 APH 106 (,1 f) * O r'1-,,. r.,- tr :t) i i I l : DISMISSING IHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \T 1 '),'