Merugu Sampth v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Arlicle 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent, District Collector in notifying land bearing Sy.No.1232 shown at Sl.No.9 of in Form lll under Section 22- A (1) (d) of the Registration Act, '1908, vide Letter.No.E 1t1O48l2O2S dt.24l1Ot2O2S, situated at Karimnagar Mllage and District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, being contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and rules framed thereunder, and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution, Consequently to quash the same by directing the respondent to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent, District Collector in notifying land bearing Sy.No.1232 shown at Sl.No.9 of in Form lll under Section 22-A (t ) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908, vide Letter.No.E 11104812025 dt.24t1O/2O25, situated at Karimnagar Mllage and District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural iustice, being contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and rules frameil thereunder, and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution, Consequently to quash the same by directing the respondent authorities to delete/ remove the impugned letter along with the Appendix from all the official websites/ Portals of the respondents herein. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit flled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider my representation dl.2010212026 for excluding / de-notifying land in Sy.No.1232, situated at Karimnagar Village and District from the Prohibitory list notified U/s Section 22-A (1) (d) of Regiskation Act in Lr.No.E111048/2O25 dt.2411012025 by affording an opportunity of hearing, as otherwise petitioner stands to suffer serious hardship irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.L4206 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 29.04.2026 Between: Merugu Sampath AND . ..Petitioner The State of Telangana Represented by is Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: (ORAL) Respondents Heard Mr. N.Manohar, learned counsel lor the petitioner; Mr. L.Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Rcvenue, appearing for the respondents; and perused the material on record. \ \

#2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submittcd that in similar circumstances, the order dated29.04.2026 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.l4l98 of 2026 and requested this Court that similar order may be passed in this writ petition- The said submission is not opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

#3. Recordlng the aforesaid submission, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondcnt No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02-2026 for removal/deletion ol the 2 land in Survey No. 1212. situared ar Rekurrhy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District frorn the prohibitory list of properties shown at Sl. No.9 of Appendix-Xl (Rule 23g to 241) in Form_V, under Secrion 22_A of the Registration Acr. 1908 vide retter No.El/104g/2025 dated,24.10.2oz5,by issuing notice to the petitioner and to all other concerned/interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of rcceipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to As a sequcl thercto. miscellancous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition. stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/-C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

#1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue) Government of Telangana Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

#2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad

#4. The District Collector, Karimnagar District at Karimnagar 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Division at Karimnagar. 6. The Drstrict Registrar, Regiskation and Stamps Department, Karimnagar District at Karimnagar.

#7. The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 8. The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Gangadhara, Karimnagar District.

#9. One CC to SRI N.MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

#11. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 29.04.2026 passed in WP.No.14198 ot 2026) PSK,lPMK J I t. .L ''. HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.14206 of 2026 i I I I - -:1.-^.4 -.:-.' .21..'i1* iitt L; ,\- -) l-i}\I;;')\, tlo{ i. 4 ll'Y 'i.'li ,: ),.v l. \- i DISPOS!NG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14198 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDERz 29.M.2O26 Between: Parem Usha Rani Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: (ORAL) . . . Respondents This writ petition is filed by the petitioner se€king to declare the action of respondent No.4 in including the land in Suwey No.52, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District in the prohibitory list of properties at Sl. No.37 of Appendix-Xl (Rule 238 to 241) in Form-V, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 vide letter No.Eli 104812025 dared

24.10.2025, without following due process of law, as being itlegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

#2. Heard Mr. N.Manohar, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. L.Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents; and perused the material on record. n 2

#3. It is submitted that the petitioner along with one Mr' G'Ananth Reddy purchascd Plot No 9' admeasuring 271 7 sq'tare yards in Survey No 52' situated at Rekurthy Village. Kothapalty Mandal, Karimnagar' District under registered sale decd bearing documcnt No.8632 of 2010 dated 12'10'2010 from one Ms.G.Mallamma'ThereafterthesaidG.AnanthReddyreleasedhishalfshare to the petitioner under registered sale decd bearing document No 8643 of 2012 dated 30.07.2012 It is Submitted thirt originally, the land admeasuring Acs.48-20 cents in

#4. Survey Nos.2, 52, 58' 59, 100, I0l, 178, 220 and 222' situated at Rekurthy Vitlage. Kolhapally Mandal, Karimnagar District' was owned by one Ms. Ameena Bee D/o. Shaik Sateh; she filed declaration in c.c. No.l665/KNR/75 whercin the order dated 02.11.1976 was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar (LRT) hotding that "the declarant is entitled to hold one standdrd hotding, since the total standard holding held by famity unit is less than the ceiling area (J/s 4(t) of the Act and determined u/s 9 oftheAct, thatthefamilyunildidnotholdinexcessoftheceilinglimitonthe notifiect date i.e., 0l.0t.1975 Katha is in the name of the declarant' Further' it washeldthat,"thealienationoftheselandsisprohibitedU/s17(l)ofthe Act ". " Ms. Ameena Bee executed registered sale deed in favour of Ms. Gandham Mallamma (the vendor of the petitioner) vide document No'197 of 1995 dated 07.01.1995 in respect of the subject land admeasuring 277 '7 square 3 yards in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy village, Kothapalty Mandal, I Karimnagar District. Ms. Ameen Bee preferred an appeal before the LRT in Appeal No.456 of 77lK and the same was allowed by -order dated 28.02.1917 holding that "the lower Tribunal went wrong in invoking sectton l7(l) of the act and prohibiting the appellant from alienating the lands" and order has attained finality.

#5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4, without following due procedure and without verifying the records, notified the subject land in the prohibitory Iist of properties vtde letter No.El/1048/2025 dated 24.10.2025 at SI. No.37 of Appendix-Xl, (Rule 238-241) in Form-V, shown as the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 relating to the family of Mr. Shaik Saleh (late) in C.C. No.200 of 1997 . It is submitted that respondent No.4 has wrongly notified the subject land in prohibitory list of properties in Form-V instead of Form-III and has also not signed the said form. The very procedure adopted by respondent No.4 in notifying the subject land in the prohibitory list of properties is bad in law and contrary to Rule 240 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908.

#6. It is submitted that one Mr. Laxman made application datd 22.01.2026 under the fught to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI') to respondents No.4 and 5 requesting to fumish the entire record pertaining to C.C. No.200 of 1997 4 who in-turn furnished the same vide letter dated 23.02.2026 enclosing letter dated 16.02.2026 and 12.02.2026 stating that "the said file not pertditls or available with this Section" and also stated that "upon searching in the o/fice the file could not be traced'. That similar applications were made by Mr. Laxman under RTI to respondents No.5 to 7 who in-turn fumished reply dated

28.01.2026,31.01 2026 and 05.02.2026 informing that the said fi[e is not available in the offices.

#1. Lcarned counsel tbr the pctitioner submitted that the subject land was not identificd as ceiling surplus land and it is purely a patta land. The petitioner submined representation dated 20.02.2026 for removing/deleting the subject land from the prohibitory list o[ properties, however, the same has not been considered so far. The gnevance of the petitioner is that respondent N0.4, without conducting proper enquiry and without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner, wrongly included the subject land in the prohibitory list of properties, as such, she is constrained to approach this Court.

#8. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue submitted that appropriate action witl be taken on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

#9. Recording the aforesaid submission, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider 5 the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02.2026 for removaUdeletion of the land in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District from the prohibitory list of properties at Sl. No.37 of Appendix-Xl (Rule 238 to 241) in Form-V, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 vrZe letter No.Ell1048/2025 dated24.10.2025, by issuing notice to the petitioner and to all other concerned/interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed April29,2025 RRK B. VIJAYSEN REDDY,I