The High Court · 2025

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 Respondent herein to comply the orders and register the sale deeds presented by the Petitioners, pending the outcome in the present Contempt case . A Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent.l: :SRI APSURESHRAM Counsel for the Respondent.2 & 4: The Government Pleader Counsel for the Respondent.3 :SRl B. ARJU N RAO The Court made the following: ORDER , a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A CONTEMPT CASE No. 1192 OF 2o.24 ORDER: Complaining wilful disobedience of the order dated

29.02.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 5094 of 2024, this Contempt Case was filed.

2. By the order under contempt, this Court directed respondents to receive, register and release the document as and when presented by petitioners in respect of their lands in Survey No.lO7 situated at Vemulawada Village and Mandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District, erstwhile Karimnagar District by removing the same from wakf properties. Accordingly, petitioners approached respondents and requested to register the sale deeds presented by them in respect of their lands. However, no steps have been initiated by responderfts till date. Petitioners therefore, submitted i.epresentation dated

04.O4.2024 but in vain. According to petitioners, respondents acted in a negiigent and inconsiderate manner with ill intention to cause loss #petitioners.

3. Jlis lttd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter stating that interim order pertains to certain procedural action regarding issuance of Pattedar Passbooks under Dharani Portal. Specilicaliy, Petitioners L, 2 and 3 had made on line \* \ 't 'i 'i 2 applications under TM-24 module for issuance' of Pattedar Passbooks for lands under Iitigation, r,r,hich could not be processed due to the fact that Survey No. I07 was under prohibition for transactions, as per Gazette Notification No. 2 1, dated 11-01-1990. It is asserted that instead of aprplying under TM-15 module requesting removal of propert5r flrorn prohibition list, petitioners mistakenly submitted Applications under TM-24 module for issuance of Pattedar Passbooks, which was not the appropriate procedure for lands under prohibition. It is further stated that only the 4rh petitioner later submitted correct Application under TM-15 module seeking removal of property from prohibition list. The said Application was processed by the

3.d respondent, who, after verification of reverrue records, obtained a report from the Mandal Girdawar. Tht:reupon, the 2nd respondent personally verified all the d,,ctrmentation, followed due procedure and forwarded the Application to the Additional Collector (Revenue) for further action, reoommending removal of property from prohibition list.

3.1 It is stated, they always upheld and rr:spected the orders of this Court, in particular the one under contempt, hence, prays this Court to dismiss the Contempt Cers;e.

4. The 3',1 respondent also filed countcr on similar lines as that of the 2"d responde nt. f -''2 t. I, I, - _t ^-

5. The 4th respondent Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada Mandal in the counter emphasizes the role of the Government of Telangana in registration of agricultural lands under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act,2O2O. He t specifically, refers to the appointment of Tahsildars of the Mandals concerned as Joint Sub-Registrars, which was done through G.O. Ms. No. 95 dated 15-05-2018. This Government Order, issued under the Registration Act, 1908, delegates the responsibility of registering agricultural lands to the Tahsildars in their respective jurisdictions. Furthermore, it is stated, after reorganization of districts and sub-districts in Telangana, G.O. Ms. No. 118, dated 28-|O-2O2O was issued. This Order again appointed Tahsildar as Joint Sub-Registrars, specifically for dealing with registration of agricultural land documents under the provisions of the 2O2O Act. It is clarihed that Su#Registrars of Registration and Stamps Department have been excluded from registering documents relating to agricultural lands as per the directives in G.O. Ms. No. 118. Since the issuance of the said G.O., Tahsildars have been performing their functions as Joint Sub-Registrars by registering agricultural lands, making mutltions, and issuing Pattedar Passbooks. He further points \ out that lands in Surve-y Nos. 107/ A, IO7 /8, LO7 /C, and LO7 /D in Vemula'*,ada Revenue Village are agricultural lands, as 't 't 4 \i indicated by Dharani Portal. In the light of this, the Sub- Registrar from Registration and Stamps De:partment in Vemulawada does not have the authority to register these agricultureLl lands. This respondent stresses that petitioners never subrnitted any document related to lancls in Survey No. 107 of Vemulawada to Sub-Registrar (Registration and Stamps Department), further corroborating the position that such registratiorr should not be under the jurisdiction o[ the Sub- Registrar.

5.1 It is further stated, thel' have ber-'rr requesting Respondents 1 to 3 to remove Survey No. 107 flrorn prohibition watch register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Petitioners' request stems from the fact that land ir-r Survey No. lO7 was treen notified as Waqf Property. Tht: Respondent highlights that the District Collector of Rajanna-sirdilla, the lst respondent in the Writ Petition, had addressed lt:tters to the CEO of the Waqf Board on 23-O6-2O|L and O4-02-|1016, urging reconciliation of the issue. It is clarilied that this respondent has no direct involvement in the matter of agricultural land registration. / I.1- / t. t. T.

6. Heard Smt. B. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondent No.2, Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader for stamps and Registration on behalf of Respondent No.4.

7. Having heard learned counsel on either side, it is clear that petitioners pursuant to the interim order under contempt approached respondents and requested to register the sale deeds presented by them in respect of their lands, but no action has been taken thereon till clate. whereas the contention of the 2"d respondent Revenue Divisional oflicer is that petitioners 1 to 3 had made on line applications under TM-24 ) \ ( ( Module instead of rM-15 module requesting removat,Ef property from prohibition list and for issuance of pattadar passbooks which was not the appropriatc procedure. According t6 ths lnci respondent, the 4th respondent applied under TM-15 module, hence, his Application was processcd b,y the 3.d respondent- Tahsildar and it was forwarded ro the District collector, Rajanna-Sircilla. From the counter of the 2,)d respondent, it is clear that the only impediment- for them to process the 'l 'l t ,v ,l I, I 6 Applications of petitioners 1 to 3 is they have alrplied under wrong module.

8. ln vier,v of the same, this Court is of thc opinion that re.spondents have not committed any contempt zrnd Lhe Contempt Case is closed. However, petitioners arc at liberty to apply for relr:ase of the documents in respect of thr:ir lands in Survey No. 1O7 situated at Vemulawada Village and lvlandal and for registration in accordance with the procedure prescribed the refor. 9 Clonsequently, the miscellaneoLls Appli<:ations, if anv shall starnd closed. / SD'. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEP UTY REGIS /ffRUE COPY/ \ To,

1. Sri Sandeep Kumar, S/o. Not known The District District, Telangana. SECTION OFFICER , , Rajanna Sircilla

2. Sri Rajeshwar, S/o. Not Known The Revenue Divisional officer, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana'

3. Sri Mahesh, S/o. Not Known The Tahsildar, Vemulavrraila Mandal, Rajanna Sricilla District, Telangana.

4. Sri surendar babu, The sub Registrar, vernulawada Mandai, Rajanna Siricilla District, Telangana

5. One CC to SRI tvloHD BASEER RIYAZ Advocate [oPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. A P SURESH RAM Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies tl/gh o J / ,.< c) 1t\E :i -:' ' E 3 ti'r ?{iffi q:;-, ) HIGH COURT DATED:29lOBl2O25 ORDER CC.No.1192 of 2024 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE ,r , t