1 Neela Purushotham v. The State of Telangana

The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Hvderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority, Swarna Jayanti Complei, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Commissioner' Dandu Bhoopal Goud @ Bhoopal Goq{, Q{o !uJg. D, Yadaiah Goud, aged veirs. Occ. Bisiness, R/o. Plot No.4, New Padma Nagar Colony, "oo,rt-sa kiimangh'at, Saroornagar t\/andal, Ranga Reddy District 500079 M/s. Sri Karthikeya Projects, Having its Office at H.No.1 1-13-647/4, First Fioor, noaO nfo.B,'Yadav'Nagir, Alkapuri, Ranga Reddy District,500035' Rep' bv its l/anaoino Partner. Kaki Gangadhar Goud, S/o. Laxmaiah Goud'. Ageo 46;;;r. OdC."eusin"ss, Fl/o. H.Nol 10-2-7,near Gandhi Statue, Lingojiguda' Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District 500035 ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly that of I I i I i I i I respondents rrl..2 t:5 in not taking any action on ther re p resrentatio ns of the petitioners dated l8 01 .202s in respect of the subject re nds; wh _.rein and where under it is br:rrglr, to the notice of the authorities thal th,_. al enation and the proposed lay.u scr-ght to be undertaken by unofficiar rcrspondernt is chaflenged in this writ Petirio. as being arbitrary, iilegar and viorati're of Ar ticres 14, 19 (1) (g)' 21 and il00-a of the constitution of rndia and c:onsequ en|y direct the respondents t,; lir;rrrrse of the representations of the pr:titioners and take steps for cancellati,)r ,): the Agreement of Sale_cum_Gp,^ ;rnd lale Deeds in accordance w tt ,_ zr\v in respect of the land in Sy.No. j9 and 37 (Old), to an extent of Ac.t2[ -n 7 Gts. now allotted with new surveT numbers Sy.No. 15, Ac.8-09 Gts., l35 Nc .1 9, Ac.7-O7 Gts., Sy.No. 21 , Ac.11-23 Gts. Sy.No. 30, Ac. 4-37 Gts., Sy.l',,l(, ,13. Ac.O-35 Gts., Sy.No. 35, Ac.1-12 r:;ts, Sy.,,lo. 36, Ac.1_16 Gts. and Sy.trlo. 38, Ac.4-2g Gts., situated aI Korrgar;rkalan Village, lbrahimpatnarr Ir,4a rJal. Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2o2 Petition urrdr:' Section 151 cpc praying that in ,-o circunrstances stated in the affidavit fired rr support of the petition, the High court ma,,,be preased to grant status-quo ore r the Iand in Sy.No. .19 & 37 (Old), t,: an ext ;nt of Ac.2O_11 Gts. now allottec wirl new survey numbers Sy.No. 15, AC.B_19 C ts., Sy.No. 19, Ac.7-07 Gts, {iy Nc. 21, Ac.11_23 Gts., Sy.No. 30, Ac. 4_37 G:s., Sy.No. 33, Ac.0-35 Gts, {r)y No. 35, Ac.1-12 Gts., Sy.No. 36, Ac.l ..16 Gts & Sy.No. 38, Ac'4-28 Gts, sitra.e'rr at Kongarakaran Viflage, rbrahimpatnam r4andar, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI Counsel for the Res,pondent No.1 to 4: AGp FOR REVENUTE counsel forthe Res6xrndent No.5: sRr v.NARASTMHA GouD, sc FoR HMDA The Court made the tollowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY II/RIT PETITION No.14590 of 2O25 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioners dated 08.01.2025 in respect of the subject lands wherein and whereunder it is brought to the notice of the authorities about the alienation and the proposed layout sought to bc undertaken by unofficial respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that the petitioners are the protected tenants of the lands admeasuring Ac.20.17 gts., in Sy.Nos' 15, 19, 21, 30,33,35,36 and 38, situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and entitled for issuance of the ownership certificate under the provisions of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 195O (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the pattadar-respondent No.6, without issuing any notice as required under Section 38D of the Act, has executed Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing Document No.5460 of 2025, dated 76.04.2025 and also certain sale deeds in respect of the subject lands in favour of respondent No.7, therefore, the 2 CVBR, J \vp 459{) 2025 petitionrr:, lri1"'e made a detailed representation to res )ondent Nos.2 to I i r,:r 08.O 1.2025. The grievance of th_- ltctrti rrlers is that dcstj Lc rlLe said representation, respondeni Nrs 2 .o 5 are not taki:t1 , n,' action. Hence, claiming the r.i1hl_:; ur der the - provisiot :s ., r he Act and disputing thc rights of t b e I )attadar and seel<i tg c ancellation of the Agreement of Szrir:_r,r tm_GpA alleged t I h:.r'c been executed by the pattadar n f z vorr r of the respondr n )lo 7, the petitioners have filed the prcse rr pr trtion.

3. Cor,ridr rr--d the submissions made by lhe czrrnccl :ounsel for the prrr t.ie ,. :rnd with their consent, this wriL p -:tirion s being disposed rr rrl lh. admission srage.

4. As p.:r r lre provisions of the Act, no doubr cr:-.-:tir: rights have beetr :rr:ir ed in favour of the tenants for iss_.ing o\(. rership certificaLc .rnc r r section 38-E of the Act, subject to ,he enants compll,in 3 ri 1L the conditions/ provisions of thr: l\:t .: r.rd the Rules mac1,. tl rrrr:under. However, the petitioners,, r: :rin-l Lng the tenancy r ighis h:rve filed this writ petition nearlv a[:r:r 7 ,i ycars after the :t iftlr.cmcnt of the Act. Therefore, if thr. pet.itio ters as the tenar ts ,, r e having any rights under the pr,tvis; ons of lhe - ht: lrattaclars are not coming forward r.o e xec: Lte the Act and i registered sal: ,1eeds or conveyance deeds in favtur o1. r_.,em in rcry. ;''g / _/ -t CVB& J Wp 14590 2025 respect of their shares in terms of the Act, they have to approach the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act. Instead of taking appropriate recourse of approaching the Tribunal constituted undcr the provisions of the Act, this writ petition has been fi1ed seeking cancellation of the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA alleged to have been executed by the pattadar in favour of the respondent No.7 and also certain sale deeds' In view of the above, this Court, while exercising powers 5. under Article 226 of tlle Constitution of India cannot delve into the rights of the petitioners vis-a-vis pattadars of the land and to examine the validity or otherwise of the Agreement of Sale- cum-GPA alleged to have becn executed by the pattadar in favour of the respondent No 7 or the sale deeds r'rnder the provisions of the AcL. The prescnt writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking to consider the representation dated O8.O 1.2025 at this length of time is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law disturbing the settled position of the persons who are in enjoyment of the property lf the petitioners are having any grievance for not considering their case as the protected tenants, they are having remedy under the provisions of the statute and filing a writ is not an appropriate remedy and this t I 4 CVBR, J \\ l) I ljqil 2025 Court ca rn( t grant any relief at this length c,:' tLrne ;-rcluding directinq .h: r'espondents to dispose of represer l atir ril _

6. A,:c olli rgl1., the Writ petition is dispcsecl ol' granLing libcrty t: rl-: tetitioners to avail Lhe remedies as ar.ir,lal Le under lan', if tlre r/ ,tr r so advised. There shall be no orcr:r ,t,s to costs. Ar; ,: :;t:r1uel, the miscellaneous petitions l)cnctin., if any, shall str n:1 -- osed. I I i i To, SD,-N.RAJ GOPAL DEPU ry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE(:TION OFFICER

1. The Princir:a Secretary, Revenue Department, *cre,tariat, l-,yderabad, State of Telanqa na.

2. The Dist-ict ()o lector, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Re renL € Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam I)ivisron. Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Tah';ilJar brahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy' Dis:rrct. 5. The Conrnrissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrment A rthority, Swarna Jayanti Oo mplex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

6. One CC to S il SRIKANTH SUTARI, Advocate [OPUO] 7. One CC to SiIV NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HN/[,A [(]PU3l B. Two CC; c (ir FOR REVENUE, High Court for thr: S,ate :f Telangana at Hyderabrc [O-]Tl

9. Two CD C,rp e,s, BSR/BSK I ? HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.14590 of 2025 ,) o o , ,-'c=-: -,+\ht r l4 a4 l0 ;Lt,l 296 t .tl'J,l: rEo o^ $( i o a -a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS /.- \ A, t_J l3 b ,, l : , I I t I I I i I : r