IMr. Bokka Yadi Reddy v. State of Telangana, Represented by principal

2. The Dist collector, tVedchal- tValkajgiri District 3. The Revenue Divisional officer, KeesarDivision, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 4. The Tahaslidar, Ghatkesar firlandar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 5. V. 5 Pratap Bgo9.v, 9/o^ Ir4l. K_Nryayan Reddy aged about 44 years, occ Business, R/o. H. N,o. 2-2-1Bl31lc, Ftai No. 203. saj Krishni Nitavim, b- o. Colony, Hyderabad 6 Princeton Educational society, rep.resented by its- chairman Mr. K. pratap Reddy s/o.'Vl K. Narayan'Red'dy, ha.ving it office at 207, sai eragithi Towers, 3-6-51 9, Himayathnager, Hyderabad- - ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent iri'not updating and not including the land of the petitioners i.e., Ac.0-06 Gts, in Sy. No. 1135, Ac.0- 05 Gts, in sy. No. 1136, Ac.0-08 Gts, in sy. No. 1137, Ac.0-13 Gts, in sy. No. 1138, Ac.6-24 Gts, in Sy. No. 1139 and Ac. 0-37 Gts, in sy. No. 1140 totally admeasuring AC 08-13 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, MedcharMarkajgiri District, for issuance of digitarized patta pass book, and not considering the representation dated 10.og.2020 as being arbitrary, ,regar, violative of principles of Natural Justice and Art. 14, 19, 21 and 3OO_A of constitution of rndia and against the provisions of rerangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Acr, 1g71 and rerangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Book Act'2020 and consequentry direct the 4th respondent to update the revenue records and issue digitarized patta: pass books in favour of petitionerin respect of land Ac.0-06 Gts, in Sy. No. 1135, Ac. O_ 05 Gts, in Sy. No. 1136, Ac.0-08 Gts, in Sy. No. 1137, Ac.0-13 Gts, in Sy. No. 1.t38, Ac.6_24 Gts, in Sy. No. 1139 anct Ac. 0-37 Gts, in sy. No. 1140 totally admeasuring AC 08_13 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District. OF 1 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 4th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10'o9'2020 to update the revenue records and issue digitarized patta pass books in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0-06 Gts, in Sy. No. 1135, Ac. 0_ 05 Gts, in Sy. No. 1136, Ac.0-08 Gts, in Sy. No. 1137, Ac.0_13 Gts, in Sy. No. 1138, Ac.6- 24 Gts, in sy. No. '1 139 and Ac. o-37 Gts, in sy. No. 1140 totary admeasuring AC 0B-13 situated at Edurabad Viilage, Ghatkesar Mandar, MedcharMarkajgiriDistrict pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Res pondents No. 1to4: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI D.RAGHAVULU P 1 Between: Bokka Yadi Reddv' s/o' tr/r Bokka Narsirnha Reddy aged 64 .cc Agricurturar Ryo. of llokkonigudin Viflase. Ghatkei;iM;;rt; ilJoci?'iilaiXalgirioistrtct D 1. ...PETITIONER The State of Telanoana ..Represented by principal Secretary Municipal a nd Uiba n bevejropment b;p; ;;;i,"3".reta riat, bid, +S,TJlJ:l{3t"" -Hydera

2. The Hyderabad Metro .Development Authority, Reprasented by it Commissioner, Tanaka, Hyderabad'

3. The Thasidar, Ghatkesar Mandal Medchal- Malkajgiri District +. V, 15 Pratap.Reddy,^S/o._Mr..K-_N.arayln Reddy aged about 44 years, Occ No.'205. Sai Krishnd f.fitiyir, Business, Ri/o. H. .No. 2-2-1Bt31lC, D.D.Colony, Hyderabad -Ftat

5. Princeton Educational society, represented by its chairman Mr. K. pratap Reddy S/o- IVlr- K. Narayan Reddy, ha.ving ii office at 207, Sai eragithi . Towers, 3-6-519, Himayathnager, Hliderabad I ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to release the layout permission to the 4th and Sth respondents in respect of lands in survey numbers No. 1135, 1136,1137, 1138, 1139 and 1140 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandat, Medchal Maikajgiri District in spite of my representation dated 1 11912020 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and abuse of due process of law and contrary to the provisions of HMDA Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to release the layout permission to the 4th and Sth respondents without hearing the petitioner. 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 2nd respondent not to release the layout permission to the 4th and 5th respondents without hearing the petitioner in respect of lands in survey numbers No. 1135,1136, 1137, 1138, 1't39 and 1140 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms.T.V.SUDHA, rep., SC FOR HMDA Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4&5 : SRI D.RAGHAVULU The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL llrarISl Nos.589O of 2O2 and, L6921 of 2O2O COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.5B90 of 2021 is filed seeking the foltowing relief: "...to issue order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4tn respondent in not updating and not including the tand. of the petitioners i.e., Ac.O.06 Gfs in Sy. No. 1135, Ac.O.05 Gfs in Sy. ,lVo. 1136, Ac.O.08 Gts in Sg. No. 1137, Ac.O.t3 Gts in Sy. lVo. 1138, Ac.6.24 Gfs in Sy. No.tt39 and Ac.0.37 Gts in Sy. No.1140, totally adrneasuring 4c.08.13 Gfs situated at Edulabad Village, Chatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District fo, issuance of digitalized patta pass book and not consid.ering the representation dated 10.09.2020 as being arbitrary, Illegal, uiolatiue of Principles of Natural Justice and. Article 14, 79, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of Ind.ia and against the prouisions of Telangana Rtghts in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Book Act, 2O2O and consequentlg direct the 4tn respondent to upd.ate the reuenue records and issue digitalized pattapass books in fauour of petitioner in respect of land Ac.O.O6 Gts in Sy. ,lVo. 1135, Ac.O.05 Gts in Sy. No. 1136, Ac.O.OB Gfs in Sy. No. 1137, Ac.O.13 Gts in Sy. lVo. 1138, Ac.6.24 Cfs fn Sy. No.1139 and Ac.0.37 Gts in Sy. No.1140, totally admeasuring Ac.08.13 Gts situated at Ed.ulabad, Village, Ghatke s ar Mandal, Me dchal- M alkaj g iri District . . .,, W.P.No.6921 of 2O2O is filed seeking the following retief: "...to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"a respondent in proposing to release the lagout permission to the 4th and Stn respondents in respect of land.s in Sg.Nos. 1135, 1i36, 1132, 1j38, l l39 and j l4O situated. at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal_ Maikajgii District in spite of mA representation dated 11.09.2O2O as being illegal arbitrary unreasonable and" abus.e of dye process of law aia contrary to the prouisions of HMDA Act and. consequently d"ireit the 2ud respondent not to release the lagout permission to the 4ttt and 5u, respondents without heaing the petitioner...,, \ 2

2. Since the parties and issue pertaining to the writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.T.V.Sudha, learned counsel representing learned Standing Counsel for the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.l692l of 2O2O are mentioned hereunder: i. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner along with 12 others is the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No..1135, Ac.O.O5 guntas in Sy. No.1136, Ac.O.08 guntas in Sy. No.1 137, Ac.O.13 guntas in Sy. No.1138, Ac.6.24 guntas in Sy. No.1139 and Ac.O.37 guntas in Sy.No.lI4O, totally admeasuring Ac.OS.13 gutnas situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has sold away part of the land pertaining to the petitioner herein to the unofficial respondents. Based upon the property, which has been .{ _'t conveyed in favour of the unofficial respondents, for forming a layout, the unofficiar respondents made necessary application in accordance with law to the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority. Accordingly, necessary permissions were granted to the unofficial respondents. ii. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not sold away the entire extent of rand in favour of the unofficial respondents herein. Unofficial respondents had obtained layout pertaining to the land which has not been sold to the unofficial respondents and also to the land which is in possession of the petitioner. without verification of the said aspect, the officiar respondents granted rayout to the unofficial respondents to the land which has not been sold to the unofficial respondents. Learned counsel ,,vould further submit that the petitioner had given a letter of undertaking to the official respondent on 22.ro.2o2o stating that he has no claim and right over the said land in Sy'Nos' ll2l /p, rr37 /p, 1 r3g/p, rr4o /p of Ghanpur village (Edulabad), Ghatkesar Mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri Dsitrict belonging to respondent No.5 and he has no objection to issue layout- But the said letter has not been given to the entire extent of rand belongs to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed another writ petition No.16921 0f 2020. He would further submit that subsequently, the petitioners filed another representation before respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10.11-2O2O not to release the lay out permission, where the petitioner has found in the pahanies, revenue records as the plot owner. Neither reply has been made to the said representation by the official respondents nor it was rejected. Under these circumstances, he would seek to pass appropriate direction'

5. On the other hand, Ms.T.V.Sudha, learned counsel representing learned standing counsel for the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority would submit that the petitioner has given no objection letter on 22-lO.2O2O clearly demonstrating that the petitioners do not claim the propert5r in respect of the survey numbers in question and he also issued a letter that he was withdrawing W.P'No.16921 of 2O2O. Hence, she would submit that the official respondents, after scrutinizing the entire documents and upon recording no objection, had granted final layout in favour of unofficial respondents, therefore, subsequent representations would ultimately burdening the official . _.._j_-.-...- -... .::---: - - t. ---=--*-;-.E- - -F- ;t respondents, hence, she seeks to dismiss these writ petitions.

6. Taking the sarne stand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the unofficial respondents are the bonafide purchasers from the petitioner herein and accordingly application for granting layout has been made before the HMDA and that too on the strength of the no objection certificate vide letter dated 2O.LO.2O2O. Taking the u-turn, the petitioner has made another representation on 10.11 .2O2O for the reasons best known to : I ,i :l him. Whereas, the unofficial respondent who is the owner of the subject property legally, obtained the layout permission as required under law from the HMDA. Therefore, he would seek to dismiss these writ petitions.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the official respondents are formal parties in this writ petition and no relief has been sought as against the revenue authorities. He would submit that the land in question is no longer an agricultural property, where the Revenue Divisional officer had already converted the land into non-agriculture purpose vide proceedings t ( 7 A*r"i , IWr', No.82/564/2016, dated Ol.O7.2Ol7, on an application made by the unofficial respondent. Hence respondent No.1 is the formal party no orders are sought by respondent No. 1.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing learned Standing Counsel for HMDA and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for unofficial respondents and on perusal of material placed, this Court without making any observations on merits or demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to examine the application dated LO.O9.2O2O made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

9. With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any stands closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 6 ;

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad, Telangana.

2. The Dist collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 3. The Revenue Divisional officer, KeesarDivision, tvledchal- IVlalkajgiri District ;'.;::. ffi:u v

4. The Thasildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 5. The Principal Secretary.Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

6. Il:"3;S,"issioner, Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Tanaka, /,

7. One CC to SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI, Advocate. tOpUCl 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

9. Two CCs to GP. for-Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI

10.One CC to Ms.T.V.SUDHA, Advocate. [OPUC] 11.One CC to D.RAGHAVULU, Advocate. [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies. BSK BS . " " ,,':,... ' ,t: ,,;. lf .f:?'? _--_.,4 HIGH COURT DATED i2210912025 \ \ i !: \ t t ( 1!'!E Si4 t; :,.) 12 ffic M 21 (:) * :)r'rri r:- i COMMON ORDER WP.No.5890 of 2021 & 10921 of 2O2O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS s"