High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. The Collector, Rangareddy District The Revenue Divisional officer, Shadnagar Division, Rangareddy District The Tahsildar, Elikatta, Faroognagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. ...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 issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent no. 3 and 4 in de- listing the land to an extent of Ac 2.28gts in Sy no 87iE, Ac 0.20gts in Sy no 7BlA, Ac 0.19gts in Sy no 78/AA, Ac 1.01.gts in Sy no 79/A, Ac 1.01 gts in Sy no 79/AA, Ac 0.08gts in Sy no 80/A, Ac0.08gts in Sy no B0/AA, Ac 0.38 gts in Sy no 81/A, Ac 0.39gts in Sy no B1IAA, Ac 0.08 gts in Sy no B2lA, Ac 0.08 gts in Sy no 82/AA, Ac 2.37gts in Sy no 841A, Ac 2.37 gls in Sy no 84/AA, from the Prohibitory List by rejecting the same vide proceedings no 8/14413412025 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents no.3 and 4 to take steps to delist the land to an extent of Ac 2.28gts in Sy no 871E, Ac 0.20gts in Sy no 78/A, Ac 0.19gts in Sy no 78/AA, Ac 1.01 gts in Sy no 79/A, Ac 1.01 gts in Sy no 79/AA, Ac 0.08gts in Sy r no 80/A, Ac0.08gts in liy no 80/AA, Ac 0.38 gts in Sy no 81iA, Ac,0 39gts in Sy no 81/AA, Ac 0.08 gts in riy no 82/A, Ac 0.08 gts in Sy no 82iAA, Ac :i1.3 72gts in Sy no B4iA, Ac 2.37 tts in Sy no 84/AA, from the Prohibitory List forlhwith by considering ourepr3s,)ntations. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under 3ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstzrnces stated in the affidavit filed in s;Lrpport of the petition, the High Court may be pl,:ased to issue interim directions to respondent No. 3 and 4 to de-list the Scheclul:: property i.e., land to an extent of r\r: 2.28gts in Sy no 87/E, Ac 0.20gts in Sy no 7ttlA, Ac 0.19gts in Sy no 7B/AA, Ac 1 01gts in Sy no 79/A, Ac 1.01 gts in Sy no 79/r\A, Ac 0.08gts in Sy no 80/A, Ac0.()8e ts in Sy no 80/AA, Ac 0.38gts in Sy no 81lA Ac 0.39gts in Sy no 81lAA, Ac 0.08 (ts in Sy no 82lA,Ac 0.08 gts in Sy no B2lr\A Ac 2.37gts in Sy no 84/A, Ac 2.37 ryts in Sy no B4IAA, from the Prohibitory Li,;t forthwith by considering our rep re:io ntations pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petiticner: M/S MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER r_) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY trIRIT PETITION No.13144 of2O2i ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "-...to issue an oppropriate uit or direction mnre particularly a Wit in the nature of Mandomus decloing the inaction of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in de-lkting the lond to an extent of Acs.2.28gts in Sy No.87/8, Acs.O.2ogts in Sg No.78/A, 4c.0. l9gts in Sy No.78/ AA, Ac. I .O 1 gts in Sg No.79/ A, Ac. 1.0lgts in Sy No.79/ AA, Ac.O.OSgts in Sy No.80/ A, Ac.O.OSgts in Sy No.8O/AA, Ac 0.38 gts in SA No.81/A, Ac.A.39gts in Sg No.81/AA, Ac.0.08 gts in Sg No.82/A, Ac.0.0B gts in SA No.82/A1\, Ac.2.37gts in Sg No.84/A, Ac.2.37 gts in Sy No.84/fu\ from the Prohibitory List by rejecting the same uide proceedings No.B/ 144/ 34/ 2025 as illegal arbitrary and consequentlg direct the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to take steps to delist the land to an extent of Acs.2.29gts in Sy No.87/E, Ac.O.2Ogts in Sg No.78/A, Ac-O.19gts in Sg No.78/AA, Ac.t.Oj gts tn Sy No.79/A, Ac.1.01 gts in Sy No.79/AA, Ac.O.OSgts in Sy No.80/ A, Ac.0.08gts in Sg No.SO/ AA, Ac.O.38 gts in Sy No.S1/A, Ac.O.39gts in Sg No.Bl/AA, Ac.O.O8 gts in Sg No.82/A, Ac.O.OB gts in Sg No.82/AA, Ac.2.37 gts in SA No.84/A, Ac-2.37 gts in Sy No.84/tuq from the Prohibitory List forthtutth by consideing our representations and be pleased to pass....."

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

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.28gts in Sy.No.87lE, Ac.O.20gts in Sy.No.78lA, Ac.0.19gts in Sy.No.78lAA, Ac. 1.01 gts in Sy.No.79lA, Ac.1.01gts in Sy.No.79/AA, Ac.0.08gts 2 in sy.No.8O/.!,. Ac.O.O8gts in Sy.No.8o/AA, Ac.o.38 gts in Sy.No.81/A, Ac 0 39gts in Sy.No.S1/AA, Ac.O.O8 gts in S.,.trto.82lA, Ac.O.0B gts in ij.,, No.B2/AA, Ac.2.37gts in Sy.No.8zlA, t.c. 2.37 gts in Sy.No.84/Al! situated at trlikatta Village, Farooqnage r lMandal, Rangareddy Distr ict. The said lands are Inam lands a; rd after conducting enquiry as per the provisions of The Ietangana Abolition of Inarr s Act, 1955. (for short, ,the Act, 19ll..il rnd the Rules made. thcrr:under, Occupancy Right Certific.ate rid,r O.R.C Proceedings No.ROR/ 178193/2012, datecl 28.72.,),Ot2. hi,s been issued in favor, r' rf the petitioner. The name of the pe tit oner is also recorded ir) tte Revenue Records and pattadar passlto,rks and Title Deeds werl also issued as per the provisions o1 1.ht:,letangana Rights in Lzrni rLr rd Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (for s;hr ,rt, ,the ROR Act, 2O2O) Ihereafter, when disputes arose c,ver tlte subject property with tht: adjacent oi\rners, the petitioner u,as r;c ns,trained to institute a S!rr, uide O.S.No.292 of 2024 on the file of rlLe earned Junior Civil JrrrlJe, Shadnagar and the same js pe-rd ng for adjudication. It r s further stated that even though t.herc is -ro stay or status quo r;rler on the subject property in the. Sr it, the respondents herr:i:r listed the same in Dharani portal as prc,hibited property. Aggr:eved by the sarne, the petitioner appro;Lct,ed the respondent author ities and made an application seeking tc delete the subject property from the list of prohibited cropertirs and f\ 3 unblock the survey numbers which was rejected uide proceedings No.B/laa/3a/2025. Hence, rhe present writ petition. + Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the Occupancy Right' Certihcate has been issued under the provisions of the Act, 1955 and consequential entries have been made under the provisions of ROR Act,2O2O by issuing Pattadar Passbooks, the respondents are not having any power to interfere with the peaceful possession of the propert5r nor include the same in prohibited properties list in any manner as the O.R.C confers absolute rights to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment would submit that in view of issuance of O.R.C under the provisions of the Act, 1955 and since the suit is pending, respondent-authorities have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner uid.e Proceedings No.B/144/34 12025, for deleting the subject propert5r from the list of prohibited properties.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the opinion that except stating that suit is pending, the respondents have not mentioned any valid reasons. Mere pendency of the suit in the absence of granting any interim injunction prohibiting transfer/ alienation the respondents cannot place the properties for which O.R.C has been issued under the list of prohibited properties. As per the provisions of the Act, 1955, once O.R.C has { I \ \ i 1 4 ( been issuecl, tl'u: O.R.C holders are having absoll'lte rip,hts of the property for tra.n sfer or the alienation subject to thc co:rditions mentioned uncle:t the provisions of the Act 2nd r-he Rult 's made thereunder S;i r:e it is the case of the petition( r tha t. l)zrttadar Passbooks have zrlso been issued, respondent No,s.3 ancl 4 are not having an\. po\vlr to interfere into possession ,lr bloc}. of the property for fi-.rt'rer transactions or listing of the prop':rt y in the list of prohibite c rroperties. "1 Acco:-dingll', the impugned rejecLion order passed b1' the respondents is r;,:t aside and respondent Nos.3 and 4 etre directed to examine 1},: request of the petitioner for dcie lror of the properties fronr the list of prohibited prope-ties ul)on the application b<::.r11, t-nade by the petitioner as per the prov.sions of Bhu Bharati (R.e:ord of Rights in Land) Act, 2O2t and t rc Rules made thercun<1<:r .

8. With the it rove observations, this Writ Petition is <lislrosed of. There sha[] be t'c order as to costs 9r As a st:q'-r:l. the miscellaneous petitions pendrrg, il any, shall stand c1c se I //TRUE COPY// T o, SD/. B.G. VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANI' REGISTRAR I t, v,. SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Se cretary, Revenue Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The Collector, Rangareddy District 3. The Revenue f)ivisional officer, Shadnagar Division, Rangareddy District 4. The Tahsildar, E likatta, Faroognagar Mahdal, Rangareddy Dislrict.

5. One CC to M/s Madhavi priya Mantena Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Gp for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 7. Two CD Cooies Hyderabad [OUT] TJ GJP HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:281041i2025 ORDER WP.No.13144 t>t 2025 '.' ...?' ,9 .\ \tS $ ,\ i- I I C, i.,l;-l -: .-a DISPOSING OI= THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS u \1