The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioner dated 0110412021 to delete the Petitioner land in Sy.No.26iROO to an extent of Ac.02.20 gts. situated at Thattikhana,Thattiannaram Village and Gramapanchayat, Abdullapurinet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the prohibitory list in file No.E5/4976/2013, dated. 2510912013 pending finalization of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.KANAKAIAH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR U,RIT PETITION No.1O7O7 of 2O2l ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondentd in including the petitioners land in Sy.No.26/ROO to an extent of Ac.O2.2O guntas situated at Thattikhana, Thattiannaram Village and Grampanchayat, Abdullapurmet Mandat, Ranga Reddy District in No.ESla976l2O13, dated 25.O9.2013 in prohibited list under Section 22 of tLLe Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition has been hled.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioners claims to have purchased the said subject property from the legal heirs of one D. Lingaiah and later one Venkat Reddy under registered document Nos.44 and 45 of i995. The Mandal Revenue Ofhcer mutated the names in the revenue records under R.O.R.Act and has issued proceedings dated 18.02.1998 vide No E/ 1886/ 1998' Petitioner further submits that earlier in the year 2005, the village Sarpanch and Mandal Revenue Ofhcer when tried to interfere with the subject land, petitioner approached Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and fi1ed O.S.No.881 of 20O5 seeking for permanent injunction against the rcspondents, which was considered and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated

30.04.2009. 2

3. It is submitted that the Thahsildar informed the petitioner that the subject land has been resumed vide resumption proceedings No.C / aO2 12005, dated O2.O4.2OOS stating that the subjecr land is assigned land and purchase of the said land by the petitioner is not legally valid. Ir is further submirred that lhe resumption proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing W.p.No. 72056 of 20O5 and this Court by order dated 09.06.2005 granted interim direction of stay of dispossessing of the petitioner over the subject land and thereafter the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the same was disposed on 28.04.2OO8 as follows: "However liberty is granted to the Respondents to take action for resumption of the land, if the Petitioners contravene the provisions of act 9177 alfer following due procedure all contentions are left open ones the resumption order and parchanama are set aside. petitioners wl.ro are in possession of the property shal1 not change the naturc of the land or create any 3.d party rights for a period of six months".

4. The petitioner further submits that the M.R.O.Hayathnagar in the suit O.S.No.881 of 2005 filed written statement stating that the subject land was assigned to one D. Lingaiah who was landless poor person with certain conditions and when the original assignee violated the conditions or provisions of the A.p.Assigned Land (pOT) Act, 1977, as such Form-l Notice was issued to the vendors of the petitioners on

15.O3.2OO5 and called for an explanation and thereafter resumption proceedings were issued. It is further submitted that the said resumption proce;edings were vitiated by this Court and set-aside 1 3 same. It is furthe r submitted that the respondents did not produce any document showing that the original assignee name is reflecting in the assignment register or assignment copy showing any conditions' Recording the same, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter no appeal was fi1ed as such the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2OO9 is binding on the respondents It is further submitted that notice has to be served on the 5. original assignee and purchaser while initiating resumption proceedings. The petitioner further refers to the validity of the resumption proceedings and relied upon the decision rendered in Dasari Narayana Rao and another Vs. Deputy Collector and It is further M.R.o.Sherlingampally, Rangareddy Districtt. submitted that the respondents have not followed the procedure laid down under the act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made an application under R.T.I.Act to furnish certain information in the year 2013 and the Deputy Collector and Thahsildar, Hayathnagar had issued a memo dated 06.05.2013 informing that the assignment made in favour of one D. Lingaiah was not traced out' It is further submitted that subject land is being shown as assigned land in Dharani portal and after searching online, found that the petitioner land is included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of tl:,e Registration Act, 1908. The specihc case of the petitioner is that he '20lo (6) ALD 536 :i 4 purchased the land in the year 1995 and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and his name is recorded in the Revenue Records and he was also given mutation proceedings. The petitioner would further submit that if tfre sutyect land is an assigned land, the petitioner can be given exemption under Section 3 (5) of A.P.Assigned Lands (por) Act, 1977 as he is a landress and small farmer and purchased the said lald on good faith. Since he is in possession of the subject land for more than 26 years and that his vendors have also enjoyed the said land with title of pattedar and possessor, as such no point of time the subject land is shown as assigned land. euestioning the same, the present writ petition is fi1ed. 6 Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record

7. Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel submits that as per the Dharani Portal Website, the name of the petitioner was shown and a katha No.78 has been assigned to the said 1and. However, the survey number is marked as prohibited for transaction in the subject status. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this court that the subject lands of the petitioner was included by way of the notification issued in the Ranga Reddy District Gazette Extra Ordinary published by authority dated 25.09.2023 witln reference to file No.ES /4976 /2073, Hayathnagar, Tattiannaram. The said notification / 5 was issued in terms of G.O.M.S.No.863, dated 20.06.2007 and as per the CCLA Circular instructions vide Instructions No.B1/38512O12 dated 29.05.2013. On a perusal of the notihcation, the said notification was issued under Section 22-A (ll (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

8. No counter has been filed by the respondents.

9. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this Court that in the said notihcation at S1.No.24, the name of the assignee/ allotee/ owner has been shown as one M. Ram Prasad, S/o Venkateshwar Rao i.e., petitioner herein. Name of the petitioner is shown in assignee column. Learned senior counsel submits that petitioner is only purchaser from their original vendors and the name of the assignee is not traceable. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this Court to the rnemo issued by the District Collector and Thahsildar in terms of the information sought under the provisions of R.T.I.Act. In the said memo dated 06.05.2013, it has been submitted that the assignment was made in favour of one D. Lingamaiah and he is not traced out and that Smt.M.V.Ananthalaxmi, W/o Sri M. Ramprasad and Sri M. Ramprasad, S/o Venkateshwar Rao who is the petitioner herein are in possession of the iand in the said survey number and that the mutation was aiso made in their favour and pattedar pass books and title deeds were also issued. d 6

10. On a perusal of the notification d,ated. 25.09.2013 vide File N o.ES / 492 6 I 20 1 3, Hayatnnagar, Tattiannaram issued under R.T. I.Act it is observed that it is only a notice given for inviting objections and suggestions on the proposals from all persons rvho are likely to be effected to be taken in to consideration by the Government and it cannot be considered as notification issued under section 22 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Invecta Technologies private Limited V. Government of Andhra Pradesh2 upheld the validity of Section 22_A and in case of any properties to be placed in prohibited list, the notification has to be given in terms of Section 22 (I) (e) of the Registration Act, 19O8. 1 1 In the Iight of the foregoing discussion, the impugned notification is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 22_A ofRegistration Act, 1908 and accordingly to the extent of petitioners, properly the impugned notification is set_aside. Further, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case to the extent whether said ranrrs attracts the provisions of A.p.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, lgZZ. h is for thg respondents to verify the records and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the law. 12. Accordingly this writ petition is dispos ed of granting libert5r to the petitioner to make an application to the respondent No.2/District Collector seeking for deletion of the subject property from the ' (zoos) tz s&. n 7 prohibitory list and upon making such application by the petitioner, the respondent No.2/District Collector is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of (06) weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

13. It is made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/ rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT RFG]STRAR secrrt/orrrcea IiiJ, jl[T# a ecreta ry, Reve nue Depa rtment, secreta riat, Hydera bad, State $#g,5;pffi ;#*5,;!$i,fr :#ff*ibHrx?B:::t;4JLs,si?-:i' Uu$*[#et',,.f *'*B:if,#.i:::,'J'.',',",,.n"",,, I \ I To 1 2 J 4. A o. 7. o PSK. LS /- HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 21021202s (,) (;- \:\ :) / .$ I '/./' ORDER i WP.No.10707 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \6\s{"(