High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction rnore parlicularly one in the nature of lllandamus to declare the action of the Respondents No.3 and more particularly their staff, in threaten, interfere and dispossess the writ petitioner on 19.04.2025, tc help the big software companies, as the houses looking inconvenience to lT HUB with the writ petitioner's Houses bearing No.10-1/158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards., on Plot No. 158, in Sy. No. 100 & 109. situated at Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrrct, without issuing any notices and following due process of law, also in spite of showing the registered sale deeds, property tax receipts, house hold patta certificates, etc_, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice & unconstitutional and consequentially direct the Respondent No.3 and their staff not to threaten, disturb, interfere with the writ petitioner's Houses bearing No.10-1/158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards., on Plot No. 158, in Sy No. 100 & 109, situated at Kokapet Viilage, Gandipet [\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District, following due process of larl. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co irt may be pleased to pass interim directions on the respondent No.3 and their staff not to threaten, disturb, interfere with the writ petitioners Houses bearing No.10-l/15g, admeasuring 25t) sq, yard., on plot No.158, in Sy.No.1t0 & i09, situated at kokapet village, (3andipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, oilowing due process of law, till the disytosal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MEKALA SANTOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER !--- HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13783 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 and their staff in threatening, interfering and dispossessing the petitioner on 19.O4.2025, to hetp the big soltware companies, as the houses looking inconvenience to lT HUB with the petitioner's Houses bearing 10- 1/ 158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards on PIot No. 158 in Sy.No.lOO and 1O9, situated at Kokapet Village, GandipetMandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing any notice and following due process o[ law, inspite of shon,ing the registered sale deeds, property tax rcceip[s, house Irold patta certihcates, etc., as illegal, arbitraq.' and for othcr appropriate reliefs.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counscl for the rcspcctive parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the ou'ncr and possessor of thc House bearing No. 10-1/158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards on [)lot No. 158 in Sy.Nos.lOO and 1O9, situatcd at Kokapct Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated tha[ initialll', the said plot was assigned as house sitc Patta in favour oI 2 CVBIT. J r3783-2025 \\'p_ one M. Anil Kumar through House Hoid patta Certificate vide PattaNo.D/4128 l2OO8, by the Special Deputy Collector cum RDO, Ranga Rcdd5' District ancl he has constructed two rooms therein and used to Jray' the tax to the concerned. Municipality. It is further stated that M. Anil Kumar alienated the said house ie favour of the vendors of the petitioner and the vendors had also obtained construction permission for the same vide permit No.359564/NRSG/0002/2024, dated tB.Ot.2024. It is further stated that the vendors, after constructing a house, have alienated the said house in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deeds vidc Ncrs. 12113 and l2lt4 ot 2024, d.ated. 27 .O4.2O24 and since then, [trc petitioner is in possession and enjc,yment of the said propcrtv and the said house is also assessed for proper[r tax. The grievanct: of the pclitioncr is that the respondents are lreque ntly ir-rterlerrng rr.ith his possession and enjoyrrent over the subject propc.r): claiming Lhat rhe said propert5r is irrohibited for transfer as p(.r thr: assignmcnr conditions, without issuing an1. notic( and wrllloll ( o1(lucliltg a1y cnquiry.

4. Leerrned counsel lor rhc petitioner has vehemently contended that the pctitioner has purchasecl the subject property as the same is not prohibitecl in tcrms o[ the provisions of th: Telangana Assigned Land:; (prohibition of Transfers) Act, lgTZ (frrr short, ,the J CVBR. J wp 13783 2025 Act, 7977) nor the said property is listed as prohibited properties I{e further contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property by paying valid sale consideration with a bonafide impression that there is no restriction to purchase the said property and the respondents having allowed for registration contrary to Section 5(2) of the Act, 1977 are not having any power or authority to claim that the subject property purchased under registered sale deeds is prohibited for alienation and the petitioner is not entitled to purchase the same. He further contended thaL the local authorities also granted building permission by verifying all thc documents and if the authorities, prohibited to entertain sale deeds at the initial stage, the petitioner would not have suflered and because of the act of the officials of the State Government in entcrtaining the registrations and granting building permissions, the petitioner cannot be put to loss the property on the ground thert the subject land is assigned land. He further stated that if at alt il rhere is any violation of the assignment conditions, it is on the part of the Sub Registrar, who entertained the sale deeds and the officers w'ho granted the permission to construct thc housc are responsible lor the misdeeds on their part and the petitioner being the bonaficle purchaser cannot be put to suffer and the State is vicariouslv liable for the act of malfeasance and misfeasance by its offlcials and thc respondents are not having any right to invokc 4 CVBR. J Wp_13783 2025 any provisions of lar.r, for resumption of the lands irL possession of the petitioner', without following due process of law.

5. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted lhat the house site patta assigned to the vendor o[ the petitioner is under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation ani Resettlement Act, 2013 (lor short, 'the R.R.Act, 2O13') and therefore, the conditions if any, imposed u,ould not apply to the asr;ignment patta granted to the vendor o[ [he petitioner in terms of the assignment policy enun(:iated in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.0'2.1958 or the provisions ol thc rcgistrations spccified in the Act, 9 ,:f 1977.

6. In vicw of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised hercin are required to be exlmined by the competent a uthority before initiating any actiorL against the petitioner's F)roperty. Thcrefore , this r.r.rit petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issuc notice and after considering the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner and taking into consideralion of the house site pafta assigned to thr: vendor of the petitioner undcr Lhe R.R.Act, 20 13 and lollowing the guidelines issued by the [{on'ble Supremc Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolttion of sttttctu res t and Rajendra Kumar ' 2024 SCC Ont-in( SC :ll9 t w- lt*t' 5 CVBR. J Wp 13783 2025 Ba.rjatga And Another us. U.P, Avas Eua.rn Vikas porishad and. others2 beforc initiating any action against the petitioner, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petiLioner. Till then, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners, except in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR To, SECTI SuFr,.=* 1. The Princif,gl Se-crqtary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State Of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Tahasildhar, GanCipet Manda!, Ranga Reddy District. 4. One CC to SRI MEKALA SANTOSH KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR GJP \cf . HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ::- s. 14 /6. 10 SEP 206 | .l- o". r,. . ORDER WP.No.13783 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q c"R(L k--