Writ Appeal No. 746 of 2010 · The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P' VENUGOPAL' SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE rr-, WRIT PETITI ON NO: 25683 0F 2022 Between: Resident of 42, West l.,tarreOpitfy, Se;;ft;r;ba:.""

1. Smt. R. Pramrla. W/o. late .R. . Kondaiah, Aged g9 years, Occ. House wife, 2. R. Pradeep Kumar. S/o. late R. Kondaiah, Aged 6g years, Occ. Business, 3. R. K. Sudhjr Kumar. S/o. late R. Kondaiah. Aged 66 years, Occ. Advocate, Resident of 42 West [r,4arredpally, S;;;;;;;r;H" Resident of 42. West l\,4arredpally, S;;;ft;;;;;t" AND ...PETITIONERS I 2 3 The State of Telanoana F"q ny its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, "Hyderabab. J -- - -vr v!q' r, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Estates Offrcer. Revenue.Department, having its Office in 3d Floor, N,4CH B uitd inss, opp city civil courti do,,i;;,''M;,.;iiipliu) secundera bad ...RESPONDENTS Petitron under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferabry a writ in the nature of [\,4andamus decraring Notice vide Lr. No.4/456 dated 03.06_2022 issued by the 3rd respondent as being iflegar, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and viorative of Articres 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of tndia and set aside the same and consequenfly, ,Jirect the respondents to forthwith pass orders for conversion of leasehold Iand into freehord in respect of prot No. 311gr1 , rVrcH No.3-3-20 and 52, admeasuring 135 Sq. yards, situated at Rashtrapathi Road (Kingsway), Secunderabad, belonging to the petitioners by accepting payment of Rs.97,2001 towards additional compounding fee. IANO:1O F 2022 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 suspend the operation of the Notice vide Lr. No. 4/456 dated 03.06.2022 issued by the 3'd respondent, pending disposar of the above writ petirion. ---' -.4*-y/' a. , ,.-. {:: -r;r/. ,.' " .,// , lA NO:1 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana' Rep' by its Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabao' Secretary, Revenue DePartment'

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration' Nampally' Hyderabad' 3. The Estates Officer, Revenue Department'. having its Office in 3'd Floor' IVICH " BLliir"d;:tp"p. citv ci"ii"i;"ft;d;"ili;i'.'tr/irre<i'pallv' secunderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P. AND Smt. R. Pramila, W/o. late R Kondaiah' Ag.ed.89 years' Occ i"!;oL;t'"r +2, \rve.t trrta rreapally, Secunderabad' 1 ' ii".iiEii 2.R-PradeepKumar,S/olateRKondaiah'Aged63years'Occ +zl w"s tr'4a rred pallv, secunderabad' 3 R. K. Sudhir Kumar, S/o. late R' Kondaiah' Aged 66 years' Occ " ii";id."ti;i +i, w"st Marredpallv' Secunderabad "i House wife, Business, Advocate, ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS 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 vacate the lnterim orders Dated: 20'06 2022 in IA'No '1 of 2022 passed in W,P.No.25683 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH' SIDDHARTHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ;. /' a - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.746 of 2OLO Writ Petition No.2568 3 of 2022 COMMON ORDER i (Perthe Lk L'ble SnJustLce AbtTitra d Kum.lr ShQUrli) Both Writ Appeal and Writ petition are being disposed of together by rva_y of a common order as the issue raised in both the cases is one and the same and tht: parties are common. W.P.No.25683 of 2022

2. W.A.No.746 of 2OIO dated i3.8.2010, passed is filed against the order the learned Single Judge. filed against notice dated 03.06.2022, r.r,herein the respondents directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.43,62,4 29 I towards conversion of their leasehold property as freehold property. 1S

3. Heard St-i p. Venugopal, learned Senior Cotrnsel for the appellants/ pet.itioners and the learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 4 For tl-re sake of convenience, the facts in W.p.No.256g3 of 2022 are her-eurnder discussed z AKS.J & VRI{R'J wa746 2OlO and wP 25683 2022 .''.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that iand to an extent of 405 Sq' yards bearing plot No'3119' situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad was leased out to the petitioners' uncle one Buchi Veeraiah on 15' 12' i936 by the Estates Officer, Secunclerabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.S/- for a period of 30 years, which was renewable for another 90 years. Subsequently, the said land was partitioned and an extent of 135 Sq' yards fell to the share of each of the family members While so' the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.8I6, dated 09 08' 1994' for conversion of leasehold lands to freehold and fixed the conversion charges Rs.4,800/- per Square yard for the properties beiow 150 square yards. Pursuant thereto' R'Kondaiah' late father of the petitioners, submitted an application and uide proceeding dated 08.03. 1999, respondent No'2 accorded permission and directed late R. Kondaiah to pay an amount of Rs'6'48'000/- towardsconversionchargesandRs.gT,2o0l-towards additional compounding fee, within a period of 3O days' failing which, fresh application has to be made' Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that father of the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs'6'48'O00/-' but as regards the additiona-l compounding fee' he made an -, I I tI ,,.. -r 3 AKS,J & VRKR ,T wa 746 2tr10 and W_256fi 2O;a application lor waiver. However, uid-e order dated 31.0g.20O1, respondent No.3 rejected the same. Cha1len6lng the same, late R.Kondaiah, filed W.p.No. 1IT6t of 2002, which was dismissed uide impugned order dated 13.0g.2010. Hence, late R.Kondaiah fiied W.A.No.746 of 2010. Subsequently, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants No.2 to 4. 6 Learnecl counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits 1n that no additional compounding fee has been levied respect of the partitioned property of two other family members of the petitioners/ appelrants and the same was levied only in respect of the property held by the petitioners/appella,ts and the same is arbitraqr .nd contrar5r to law. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents have issued notice dated 03.06.2022, directing the appellants to pay within thirty days, a total sum of Rs.43,62,429/_ L.€., Rs.2O,7t,6S6/. towards 1o/o penal interest and Rs.22,13,013/.. towards lease rent from December, 1996, to Aprll, 2022, a,,cl Rs.77,76O/_ towards revised additional compounding fee on conversion charges, failing which, they 4 AKS,J & VRKR,J wa 746-2010 ar\d W-256A3 -2022 would take steps for taking the land into Government custody.

7. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that no opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/ appellants was given before issuing the aforesaid notice' Hence' the petitioners/ appellants have filed the present Writ Petition' t earned Senior Counsel submits that the conversion

8. charges of Rs.6,48,00 O f - were already paid by late R'Kondiah within the time prescribed. He submits that appellants No'2 to 4, being the legal representatives of late R'Kondaiah' submitted representatio n on 12 'O4 '2022, seeking permission to pay the additional compounding fee of Rs'97'2OO/-' imposed uide proceedrng dated 08'03' 1999'

9. Learned counsel prays that appropriate orders be passed in both the cases directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 12 'O4 '2022, submitted by the appellants ald recall the notice dated 03'062022 by taking into account the fact that no additional compounding fee, penal interest and lease rents were collected in respect of other family members of the appellants' ( 5 AI(S,J & VRIiR..I \\, 7 16 .2O I U aDJ wp 256aJ 2O;)

10. In vier.l. of the above, the only issue that remains to be considered is, rvhether the respondents are justified in collecting additional compounding fee along u ith 1o% penal interest from the appellants. 1 1 . Learnecl Government pleader for Revenue contended that as per condition No.l (6) of tl_re lease deed dated 26.()5. l g5B, alterations/constructions r,r,ithout obtaining perrnission from the Estates Officer, but late R.Kondaiah raised construction in the year I9g5, without obtaining any permission and thereby, violated the lease condition. Learned Government lessee cannot 1n respondents were justified Pleader subrnits that the rmposing additional compounding fee for violating the terms of lease Agreement. The appellants, instead of paling the said additional compounding fee, filed w.p.No. 7176r of 2oo2 and the learneci Single Judge was justified in dismiss;ng the said writ petition and as such the impugned order dated I3.08.2010 needs no interference. Learned (iovernment Pleader, hou,ever, submits that appellants have not submitted all, application seeking warver of additional compounding ft:e,* t"/o penal interest or the arrears of lease and as such, the respondents had no other option except to -l 6 AKS,J & VRKR,J wa 746 2OlO aod wp 256a3 2022 issue the notice dated 03.06.2022 ald the action of the respondents in issuing the said notice is justified. Therefore, the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are liable to be dismissed

12. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the impugned notice dated 03.06.2022, has been issued by the respondents, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/ appellants. Therefore, the impugned notice dated

03.06.2022 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set 1 3. The petitioners/ appellants are permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondents within a period of two weeks. On such representation being filed, the respondents shali consider the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/ appellants and after examining whether the other shares of the partitioned property were subjected to levy or not, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are disposed of. No costs ..$!iF../' 7 AI(S,J & VRI(R,J wa 716 2OIJ and \\.p 25683 2022 As a sequel, miscellaneous petition s, pending if any, stand closed /iTRUE COPY// SDi-A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Estates Officer, Revenue Department, having its Office in 3'd Floor, II/CH Buildings, Opp. City Civil Courts Complex, Marredpally, Secunderabad,

4. One CC to SRI P. VENUGOPAL, Senior Counsel [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana al Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI CH. SIDDHARTHA SARMA, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies N/P GJP Fr- HIGH COU*T ,DATED:211081202s - j -r:j:.4-=--:-- . ,r1,.-,- i,,ii. :; ,;.-)l',,. 25 srp mn \ COMMON ORDER W.A. No. 746 OF 2010 AND W.P. No.25683 OF 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL & WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o .od4 Yr -->, ^t:t1