High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in continuing to retain the agricultural land bearing survey No, 36 (sub-divisions 36/4 and 36/8), admeasuring Ac. 8.0080 Gts, situated at Chowlapalle Village (West), Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the prohibited property list and Encumbrance certificate remarks as itlegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to direct the 2nd and 3'd Respondents to remove the said land from the prohibited property list and E.C remarks forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. R.JANAKIRAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER .ialis HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12884 of 2o.25 ORDER It is stated that the petitioner's father by nameKhaja Farooq Ahmed and his brother, Shabbir Ahmed have jointly purchased the land admeasuring Acs.08.OO80 guntas in Sy.No.36, situated at Chowlapalle Village (West), Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through rcgistered sale deed bearing document No.917 of 1979, dated 16.07.1979. It is further stated that the petitioner and his }:rother have purchased the share of said Shabbir Ahmed i.e., Acs.4.OO40 guntas through registered sale deed bearing document No.2665 of 1996, dated 19.08.1996. lt is further stated that afLer the death of the petitioner's father, his share was devolved upon the petitioner and his brother and pattadar passbooks were issued in their favour uide passbook Nos.T05O6O2O01SO and T05060200149, respectively. It is further stated that, a suit for partition came to be filed uide O.S.No.33 of 2OO8 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and a preliminary decree was passed on 19 .O2.2O13. I t is further stated that, aggrieved by the preiiminary decree, an appeal uide A.S.No.256 of 2073 came to be Illed and the plaintiffs had filed 2 CVBR, J wp 12884 2025 Cross Appeal. After contest, the said appeal was aliowed setting aside the judgment and decree and further, the Cross Appeal was dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the appeal was allowed, the subject property, which is alleged to have been listed in the list of prohibited properties pending adjudication of the suit as well as the first appeal has not been deleted from the list of prohibited properties to enable him to enjoy the absolute rights over the subject property.

2. Considered the submissions made by the learned cotrnsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for thc petitioner has submitted that as per the Stariding Order 219 (b) of the Registration Manual Part- II, the revenue authonties arc bound to entertain change of the entries in the revenue records as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Lald and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (for short "the Act 9 of 2O2O"l and the Rules made thereunder. In the absence of any restraint orders issued by the competent civil Court, the Sub-Registrar or the revenue authorities are not competent to refuse any document submitted for registration. '-"------- --':'.." - l i I I 3 CVI]R, J Wp 12884 2025 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted

4. that sub-Section (4) of Section 22-A of the. Registration Act, 19O8 confers the power on the State Government cither suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effcct to the final orders of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India to proceed to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub Section (2) ar-rd the Rules made under the provisions of the Act In view of the above submissions and on verification of 5. the record, it is found that, after dismissal of A S No 256 of 2O 13, the litigation arising over the sr-rit schedule property had , ( attained hnality and he made an application, datect O7'O3 2025 seeking for deietion of the subject property from the list of prohibited properties. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with sub-Section 4 of Section 22-A ol the Registration Act, 1908 and if the petitioner comp'lies with all the requirements for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited properties, consider his case and if the petitioner does not satisfy with the requirements, the respondent 4 CVBR. J Wp_12884 2025 authorities shali pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY \ To, //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR I l8SEC N OFFICER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, $ecretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Distfict Collectgr, District Collector office, KongaraKalan, Ranga Reddy District-501 5't0. The Tahsildar, MandalFarooq Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distriqt-5092'16' One CQ to SRI R.JANAKIRAM Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies , 4 5 6 BGS SS HIGH GOURT DATED: 2810412025 ORDER .J oi:'rEL4 ,{, u,t l) s Y.. \i .t() \ WP.No.12884 of 2025 ,9 . ?:.. \i l tf) nL DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ln- t,ll