Shiva Sai Constructions v. The State of Telangana

(oRAL) ...Respondents Heard Mr. N.Manohar, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents; and perused the material on record.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, the order dated29.04.2026 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.l4l9E 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 Govemment Pleader for Revenue.

Recording the aforesaid submission, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation o[ the petitioner dated 16.03.2026 lor removaVdeletion of the I l I I I I I ! 2 land in Survey No.205, situared at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar l)istrict from the prohibitory list of properties shown at Sl. No.6 of Appendix-Xl (Rule 238 kt 241) in Form-V. under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. l90lt videlcttcr No.Ell1048/202-5 dated 24.ro.zozs, by issuing noticc to thc petitioner and t<l all other concemed/interested persons, and pass appropriatc orders in accordance with law, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy or this order. There sha be no order as to costs. As a scquel rhereto. misccllancous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition. stand closed //TRUE COPY// sd/-c.oEEPtKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR E SECTION OFFICER To,

The Principal secretary (Revenue) Government of rerangana Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

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

The District Collector, Karimnagar Oistrict at Karimnagar 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Division at Karimnagar 6. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department Karimnagar District at Karimnagar

The Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District 8. The Sub-Registrar, hegistration and Stamps Department Gangadhara, 9. One CC to SRt N.MANOHAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 'l0 Two ccs to Gp FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of Tetangana, at Karimnagar District Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD Copies. BSI(PMK EA- l-) _., . _.:.ttl' --H a j :. { HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 ORDER WP.No.14211 of 2026 CC TODAY .4';, 1,. (" ., l-r i,rj ") -.,) ..1 t] 4 fiAY 2l,l \\ /'\'\uk\ i ,," ' {, t .]' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No-14198 OF2026 DATE OF ORDER: 29.M.2O26 Between: Parem Usha Rani AND The State of Telangana Represented by is Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: (ORAL) . Petitioner . . . Respondents This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in including the land in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapalty Mandal, Karimnagar District in the prohibitory list of properties at Sl. No.37 of Appendix-Xl (Rule 238 to 24t) in Form-V, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, l9O8 vide lefter No.E [/104812025 dated,

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

2. Heild 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. I I 2

3. [t is submitted that the petitioner along with one Mr. G.Ananth Reddy purchased Ptot No.9, admeasuring 277.7 square yards in Survey No.52, sih-rated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District under registered sale deed bearing document N0.8632 of 2010 dated 12.10.2010 from one Ms. G.Ma[[amma. Thereafter the said G. Ananth Reddy released his half share to the petitioner under registered sale deed bearing document No.8643 of 2Ol2 dated 10.07.2012.

4. It is submitted that originalty, the land admeasuring Acs.48-20 cents in Survey Nos.2, 52, 58, 59, 100, 101, 138, 220 and 222, siuated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District, was owned by one Ms. Ameena Bee Dio. Shaik Saleh; she filed declaration in C.C. No. I665/KNR/75 wherein the order dated 02.I l. 1976 was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar (LRT) holding that "the declarant is entitled to hold one standard holding, since the total standard holding held by family unit is less thon the ceiling area Uk 4(l) of the Act and determined U/s 9 of the Act, that the famiLy unit did not hold in excess of the ceiling limit on the notifLed date i.e., 01.01.1975. Katha is in the name of the declarant. Further, it was held that, "the alienation of these lands is prohibited U/s 17 (l) of the Act"." Ms. Ameena Bee executed registered sale deed in favour of Ms. Gandham Mallamma (the vendor of the petitioner) urZe document No.l97 of 1995 dated 07.01.1995 in respect of the subject land admeasuring 277.7 square o 3 yards in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District. Ms. Ameen Bee prefened an appeal before the LRT in Appeat No.456,of 77/K and the same was allowed by order dated 28.02.1977 holding that "the lower Tribunal went wrong in invc)kihg section l7(t) of the act and prohibiting the appellant from alienating the lands" and order has attained Frnality.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4, without following due procedure and without veriflng the records, notified the subject land in the prohibitory list of properties vide letter No.El/t048/2025 dated 24.10.2025 at SI. N0.37 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. L is submitted that respondent No.4 has wmngly notified the subject land in prohibitory Iist 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 notiffing the subject land in the prohibitory list o[ pioperties is bad in law and contrary to Rule 240 of the Telangana Rules under the Registratidn Act, 1908. 6- It is submitted that one Mr. Laxman made application dated 22.OI -2026 under tlre 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-tum lumished the same vide leller dated 23.02.2026 enclosing letter dated 16.02.2026 and 17.O2.2026 stating that "the said file not pertains or available with this Section" and also stated that "upon searching in the offce the file could nol be traced'. That similar applicatiors were made by Mr. Laxman under RTI to respondents No.5 to 7 who tin-tum furnished reply dated

28.01.2.026, 31.01.2026 ard 05.02.2026 informing dnt the said file is not available in the o ffrces

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land was not ldcntified as cciling surplus land and it is purely a patta land. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20.02.2026 for removing/deleting the subject land from the prohibitory list of properties, however, the same has not been considered so far. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No,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, irs such, she is constrained to approach this Court.

Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revehue submitted that appropriate action will be taken on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.