High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition UnderArticre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus chalrenging the Memo No.Bt192t2o2s dated orto4r2o25 issued by the 4th respondent directing the Mandar Girdavar, Dharur Mandar to take over the agricultural land to an extent of Ac-2.04 Guntas in Sy. No. 19714, of Dharur Village and Mandar, Vikarabad District as iilegar, arbitrary and in vioration of the Provisions of the Terangana Assigned Lands (prohibition of rransfers) Act 1977 and rules framed there under, vioration of principre of naturar justice and in violation of Articres 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and i t; consequently, sot aside the Memo No.B.119212025 dated O7lO4l2O25 issued by the 4th respondent and further directed the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitic,ner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.2.06 Gts in Dharur Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. l.A.NO:1 OF 2O2!, Petition Urrder Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the a,3ricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.ll6 Guntas in Sy. No. 19714 of Dharr:r Villag:: and Mandal, Vikarabad District, by suspending the Memo No. B,t19212O25 datr,rd 07-04-2025 issued by the 4th resF,ondent pending disposal of the above writ pelition. Counsel for the fretitioner : SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel forthe tlespondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER THE HO BLE SRI N' JUS TICE C.V .BHASKAR REDDY WRIT ON No.1432 2 of 2O2s ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: '...to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the Memo No.B/192/2lbi5 dated Oz_O4_2O25 issued by the 4.h respondent directing the Mandal Girdavar, Dharur Mandal to take over the agricultural land to an extent ofAc.2.04 Guntas in Sy. No. lg1/4, ot Dharur Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Act I7ZT and rules framed there under, violation ol principle of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and consequentry, set aside the Memo No.B/r92/2o2s dated oz_04_ 2025 issued by the 4tr, respondent and further directed the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the agricurtural lands to an extent of Ac.2-04 Gts in Dharur Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District, ,"0 O;"_:;"; other order or orders as this Hontrle Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2' It is stated that the petitioner berongs to scheduled caste community and landless poor person. It is further stated that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Acs. 2.06 guntas in Survey No. 197/5, situated at Dharur Village and Mandal, vikarabad District (for short, 'the subject land) from one Chakala Shankaraiah in the year 200g and on the application of the petitioner' in pursuarce of section 3(5) of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of rransfers) Act, 1g77 (for short, 'the Act 9 0f 1977), the then Tahsildar, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District cancelled the patta issued in favour of Sri chakala shankaraiah and regurarized the possession of the petitioner uide proceedings No.B/ 120/2012 dated 15.03.2 072 andthe name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and titre deed were issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of _dl 2 CVBR, J W.P..No.14322 of 2025 the Telangana Rightr; in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ,the RoR Act, 1!)71') and the Rules made thereunder uide PatLa No.12 and subsequently, 11 gital pattadar passbook was also issued t': he petitioner under the pror-isio:rs of the Telangana Rights in Land. I Lnd Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O)'t) (for short, 'the ROR Act, 2O2O) u rde Passbook No.T07O4015091]7 and Khata No.6OO16 and the nature of ircquisition is recorded as ceiling p,atta and till date, the petitioner's r-rame is continuing in the revenue rec(xds It is further stated that claiming the stlbject land as assigned land:rnd plohibited for transfer, the 4fr respondent has issued a Form-ll notice Uide \Io.Bll92l2O25 dated 03.03.2025 undr:r Rule 3 of the TelanganaAssil3nedLands(ProhibitionofTransfers)Rubs,20o7tothe petitioner to shorv ciluse as to why the petitioner should nol- br: evicted from the assigned larLds zLnd the petitioner submitted a repl''r to the said notice on 1g.03.2o25 sta,_rng zrbout the regularization of her right uicie proceedings dated 15.03.2O12. It is further stated that the 4fr respon,:lent issued a Inelrlo uide No.I)/ 1!r2/2O25 dated 07.o4.2025 directing the 51h respondent- Mandal Girdav rr t I take over the subject land of the per-itioner' The grievance of th€ petil.ioner is that the 5fr respondent, 'rnder tl're guise of the impugned memo clated 07.O4.2O25 issued by the 4ft respondent' is trying to dispossess the petl tioner from the subject land' Hence, thr': present writ petition. considerr:d the submissions of the learned counsel 1or the petitioner 3. and learned As;sist tnt Government Pleader for Revenue app'earing for the I CVBR, J W.P.No.14322 of 2025 respondents and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the RoR Act, l97l and the Rules made thereunder uid.e patta No.12 and subsequently, digital pattadar passbook was also issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the RoR Act, 2o2o uide passbook No.To7040150937 and Khata No.6oo16, the respondent authorities, at this length of time, are not having any right or authoritSr to invoke the provisions of the Act 9 of 7977 for cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that when the petitioner submitted a reply dated 1g.03.2025 by enclosing all the necessary documents to the form II notice uide No.B / 192 /2025 dated O3.O3.2O25 issued by the 4ft respondent, instead of passing a reasoned order to enable the petitioner to hle an appropriate appeal, the 4fi respondent has issued the impugned memo uide No.B/I92/2O25 dated 07 -o4.2o25 for resumption of the subject land. Learned counsel further contended that the said impugned memo passed by the 4tr' respondent is bereft of any reasons and the same is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and also amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 . 4 CVBR, J W.F'.No.14322 of 2025

5. A peruszrl of the impugned memo uide No.B I 1911 12025 dated

07.O4.2025 rvould lt:veal that the petitioner has subrnittecl a.n explanation dated 18.03.2Ct25. Axcept stating that the pqtitioner hLas violated the assignment conditions by selling the lands to one A. Laxmi W/':>. Anjaiah and A. Laiithadevi \I//6. Shivanandan, the impugned memo does not contain any reasons for resumJrtion of the subject land. Further, the zlft respondent instead of pas:;ing brders to enable the petitioner 1.o fi1e a n appropriate appeal in terms of Slt:ction 4A of the Act 9 of 1977 h,as issur:d the impugned memo dated 07 04.tl()25.

6. It is settl:d lzrrv that memos never considered to be orirers under the provisions of the Acl 9 of 1977. No reasons whatsoever harze been assigned by the 46 respondent while passing the impugned memo datr.:d 07.O4.2025 for resumption of tne subject land. Therefore, the irnpugnerl memo dated 07 .O4.2O25 is liabkr to be set aside on the sole ground ol the violation of principles of na.ura iustice. 7 . According,ly, the impugned memo uide No.B I 192 I 2025 dated 07 .O4.2O25 is set aside and the 4m respondent-Tahsildar '.s directed to examine the rel:ly rlated 18.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner to form II notice uideNo.lll192 12025 dated O3.O3.2O25 and pass a reasoned order by duly taking inlo consideration the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 and communicate the rcasons thereof to the petitioner within zL preriod of three (03) months from tlrr: date of receipt of a copy of this order. lill passing of .7 5 CVBR, J W.P.N1.14322 of 2O2S such order, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the subject land in any manner. 8 With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Sec retariat, State of To 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, T Telangana at HYderabad. District. 'tNrcei, vixaraoao Division, Vikarabad, Vikarabad Z. ffre Otrstrict Collector, Vikarabad District, Vikarabad' 3. The Revenue oivisioiat +. ine fafrsilOar, Dharur Mandal, Dharur, Vikar.abad District' s. rn" rr/linorr ciraaarrr,'viriii'oao trrtancat, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.. 6. i;; cc. r" cp roaiievErrrue, Hign court for the State of Telangana at z iji'i,"ctiJdnr tiAnrunrH REDDY sorVlA, Advocate [oPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUTI SA- BS tct- l A ,': j 'ArE cr,- o.. o,) .) 2') lT6 I '|' ,; ^t/o/' HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.14322 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \\(opea ,%"