Shiva Sai Developers v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ,..... '.;f., , .,Jr,{ ". -17 (. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD HoNoURABLESRIIUSTICEB.VIJAYSENREDDY WRIT OF DATE OF ORDER: 05.05.2025 Between: Shiva Sai DeveloPers AND .Petitioner The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue DePartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: (ORAL) Respondents \I 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' I Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances,

#2. the order dated 2g:O4.2l26was passed by this Court in W'P' No'14198 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. Recording the aforesaid submission, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No'4 to consider of the petitioner dated 16.03.2026 for removal/deletion of the the representation 2 land in Survey No.l4, situated at Rekurthy village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District from the prohibitory list of properties shown at Sl.No.l0 of r\ppendix-Xl (Rule 238 to 241) in F-orm-v, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 vide letter No.El/l0482025 dated 24.10.2A25, 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. ,TTRUE COPY" To, 1 2 3 ABDULLA KHAN ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER of Telangana Secretariat amPallY HYderabad Registration and StamPs' Hyderabad ^ i'|^^+^' tlarimnso?r District at Karimnagar :. ii: R:i':"J,:",ii"?1il; ffi l3l il;;; n o' 6TheDistrictRegistrar, RegistrationandStampsDepartmentKarimnagar , ilJ i\E;5;#fl:$ilXil,i":H"'r1:ff:"'1" partme nt Gansadhara o,Jtt,i'"i ru'i*n"g" u, D ivi sio n at Ka ri m n ae a I. , ,,--a^a.1,r Distri "n Karimnagar District :o ?i::::,:ttHlfll,T;;iil"T[""J":?ror '- HYderabad [OUT]

#11. Two CD CoPies the state or reransana' at TJ Y|. . .. rrr Er ,.tr.,tq8 OF .2926 -r?"..:. t,ii.i 5 ItS !. b',"--l HIGH COURT DATED: 05/0512026 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.15806 of 2026 1 H E5 t 58 z1llAYzcz$ * PAT * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $ .o{& &^- 7 \ TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1.4198 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 29.04.2026 Between: Parem Usha Rani Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secreta"ry, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: (ORAL) ...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, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District in the prohibitory list of properties at Sl. No.37 of Appendix-Xl (Rute 238 to 241) in Form-V, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1,908 vide letter No.El/104812025 dated

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

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

#3. It is submitted that the petitioner along with one Mr. G.Ananth Reddy purchased Plot No.9, admeasuring 277.7 square yards in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District under registered sale deed bearing document No.8632 of 2010 dated 12.10.2010 from one Ms. G.Mallamma. Thereafter the said G. Ananth Reddy released his half share to the petitioner under registered sale deed bearing document No.8643 of 2012 dated 30.07.2012.

#4. It is submitted that originally, the land admeasuring Acs.48-20 cents in Survey Nos.2, 52, 58, 59, 100, 101, 138, 220 and 222, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar District, was owned by one Ms. Ameena Bee Dlo. Shaik Saleh; she filed declaration in C.C. No.1665/KNR/75 wherein the order dated 02.ll.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 hetd by family unit is less than the ceiling area (J/s 4(I) of the Act and determined U/s 9 of the Act, that the family unit did not hold in excess of the ceiling limtt on the nottfied date t.e., 0t.0t.1975. Katha is in the name of the declarant. Further, it was held that, "the alienatton of these lands is prohibited u/s 17 (I) of the 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 .lgg5 in respect of the subject land admeasuring 277.7 square 3 yards in Survey No.52, situated at Rekurthy village, Kothapally Mandal, 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 28.02.1977 holding that"the lower Tribunal went wrong in invoking section l7(l) of the act and prohibiting the appellant from alienating the lands" and order has attained finality.

#5. Learned 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 list of properties vide letter No.Ell104812025 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. [t is submitted that one Mr. Laxman made application dated 22.01.2026 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI') to respondents No.4 and 5 requesting to furnish the entire record pertaining to C.C. No.200 of L997 4 who in-tum fumished the same vide retter dated 23.02.2026 enclosing retter dated 16'02'2026 and 12-02.2026 stating that "the said fire not pertains or available with this Section, and also stated that ,,upon se_arching in tl.te ofice the file could not be traced,. That similar applications were made by Mr. Laxman under RTI to respondents No.5 to 7 who in_tum furnished reply dated 28.01.2026, 31.01.2026 and, 05.02.2026 informing that the said file is not available in the offices. 7 ' Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land was not identified as ceiling surplus land and it is purery a patta rand. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20.02.2026 for removing/deleting the subject rand 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, wrongry included the subject land in the prohibitory list ofproperties, as such, she is constrained to approach this Court.

#8. Leamed Assistant Government pleader for Revenue submitted that appropriate action w,r 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 vide letter No.Ell1048/2025 dated 24.10.2025, 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. April 29,2026 RRK B. VIIAYSEN REDDY,I