M/s AGR lnfra v. lhe State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High CoL t may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representati )n dated 1O-02-2O2O submitted by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petit c n Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N KRISHNA SUMANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos, 1to 5: AGP FOR REVENI E Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : SRI A. ARAVIND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : M/s. JALLI KANAI AIAH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOIf'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.19894 of2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of tl:e Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "....to i.ssue a utrit or order/ s more particalarlg one in tle nature of u-trit of Mandamus directing tle respondent autlaities to consider the rcpre*ntalion submitted bg the petitiorer ampang dnted 1O/O2/2O2O requesting tLe respondcnt autlaities to remoue the prohibition entries again st registered sole deed bearing doanment no 13195/2019 dated 15/11/2019 and registered deuelopment ogreement-cum' Irrewuble General Pouer of Attonteg beaing doqtm.ent 13196/2019 dated 15/ 11/2O19 in online d.ata an-d be pleased to pa.ss..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 20.06.2018 with respondent Nos.6 to 8 and their family members in respect of the land to an extent of Acs. 1.18 guntas in Sy.No.39O, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to develop the schedule Property into a residential complex. Thereafter, 1 the petitioner becarne the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring- .26A.44 sq,yards out of Acs.O. 1 1'60 guntas, having purchased the same under a registered sale Page 2 of8 deed bearing document No. 1319S/2O19, datecl

15.11.2019, situated at Puppalaguda ViJlage, Gandipet Ma edal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally Sri Racharralla Laxr ri Narayana, Sri Rachamalla Narender, Sri Rachamalla Nars ng Rao and Sri Rachamalla Devender sons of late Sri Rachamalla Yadaiah and Sri Rachamalla Santosh lumar, Sri Rachamalla Sadanan, Sri Rachamalla Sanc eep Kumar (respondent Nos.6 to 8) sons, were the original owners and peaceful possessor of land to an extent ofAcs. 1. [8 guntas in Sy.No.390, who in turn acquired the same undr,r a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No. 15i 58 of 2O06, dated 13.11.2006 from Smt. Rachern alla Naras :unma. The petitioner has also entered into a registered levelopment agreement-cum-irrevocable gerreral power rf Attorney bearing document No. 13196/2O19, dated 1r

11.2O19 to develop vacant land admeasuring Ac.O.26.52 gunta.s in Sy.Nos.39O/ l, 39O12, 39O13 and 390/5, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rz nga Reddy District for development into a residential (x mplex rvith ownership apartments. ./'// ,,// t I z ! I I i I ) : : : I ! Page 3 of8

3. The vendors of the petitioner-company along with others including respondent Nos.6 and 7 made applications dated 05.1L.2OL6, 24.A4.2017 ard 08.05.2019 to the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal for change of names in the revenue records and their names were mutated in the revenue records uid.e proceedings No.B/1322/2O19, dated

04. 10.2019. After the purchased of the said properties, tJre petitioner made an enquiry about the status of the land purchased and development agreement entered into and to the utter surprise, the said lands were shown under the category of prohibited properties covered by stay order granted in O.S.No.726 of 2019 in I.A.No.853 of 2Ol9 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Upon enquiry, it came to know that O.S.No.726 of 2O19 was filed by respondent No.6 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for partition and separate possession of the house bearing Nos. 1-182 and 1-183, admeasuring 698 sq.yards, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandat, Ranga Reddy District. The property purchased by the petitioner- \o. ..-f i i i I I Page 4 oft company was not included in the schedule pr,: rerties to be partitioned by the plaintiff in the Suit. As su,: r, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) filed two interim applications I.A.Nos.8zt9 of 2OL9 and 853 of 2019 seeking to grant injunction. The Court ha ; not passed any interim order in I.A.No.849 of 2019 an,l passed the interim order in I.A.No.853 of 2Al9 granting t tatus qto in respect of the plaint schedule property. Resp< ndent Nos.7 and 8 also made an application to the fi rb-Registrar, Gandipet not to entertain any registrations wir h respect of the schedule properties in the plaint.

5. The petitioner-company states that they have purchased the properties under sale deed treari: Lg document Nos.13195 of 2019, dated 15.11.2019 W pay ng valuable sale consideration and entered into a levelopment agreement bearing No.13196 of 2019, 15. 1l 2019 under various terms and conditions and the pro rcrties were registered on the hle of the Sub-Registrar )andipet by paying valid stamp duty and registration charg,: i. No orders have been passed in the implead petition filed b .respondent ..- -:,i1, Paee 5 of6 Nos.7 and 8 and stafus qta order is passed in tl.e properlies mentioned in tlle implead petition ln I.A.No.853/2019. Respondent No.5 arbitrarily included the properties purchased by the petitioner-company in the list of prohibited properties under the guise of interim order granted rn I.A.No.853 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.756 of 2Ol9 on the frle of the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner-company has made a representation, dated LO.O2.2O2O to the respondent-authorities along with all the required documents to be perused to demonstrate the properties purchased by the petitioner cannot be included in the prohibited list, as the said property was not pa-rt of the plaint schedule properties and the vendors of the petitioner- company are not party to the said proceedings an also the said orders are not extended as the same is evident from docket order dated 2L.lO.2Ol9 in I.A.No.853 of 20 19 in O.S.No.726 of 2019.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent \ Page 6 ofE Nos.l to 5 and learned counsel appearing fcu respondent Nos.6 to 8 and perused. the record.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petit ioner would submit that the petitioner made a represen .ation dated LO.O2.2O2O to respondent-authorities request ng them to remove the prohibited entries against ttre rt:; ;istered sale deed bearing document No.13195 of 2019, dater 15.11.2019 and registered devel,opment agreement-curr-irrevocable general power of attorney bearing document Yo. 13 196 of 2019, dated 15. 11.2019. Despite receivin3 ttre same, respondent-authorities have not acted upon it. Hence, the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing for responden. Nos.6 to 8 would submit that the parties to this writ petition are contesting parties before the Civil Court and tlr, , Civil Court alone is having jurisdiction to decide the matter Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is I nwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petitiorr \ Page 7 oft

9. karned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to S would submit that the petitioner made representation long back and hence seeks to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent-authorities. Upon receiving the sarne, the respondent-auttrorities will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, tJris Writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to ttre petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent_authorities along with relevant documents in respect of the aforesaid property. On submitting such representation, the respondent_ authorities shall consider the same, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner, respondent Nos.6 to g arrd all affected parties on notice and allording them an opportunity of hearing. If, respondent-authorities are not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, they strall assign specffic reasons, pass a reasoned order, communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner and complete the said exercise within a \ Page t oft period of eight (O8) weeks from the date of subr Lission of the representation. There shall be no order as to c,r ;ts. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if e ny, pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SI] .L,VIJAYA LAKSHMI ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR (..v SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal secretary Revenue Department, secreta -i rt, state of rerangana Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangan:r. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attapur, Ranga Reddy t istrict, Telangana 4, The Tahsildar, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District, Telanga ra 5. The Sub-Registrar, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. 6. One CC to SRI N KRTSHNA SUMANTH, Advocate [Ot) JC] 7. One CC to SRt A. ARAV|ND, Advocate tOpUCl 8. One CC to M/s. JALLT KANAKATAH, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for th,: State of Telangana. touTI

10.Two CD Copies PVL SP i i i I HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 ORDER WP.No.19894 of 2020 ,j3{ r{E SIr I t o (_) 0 6 tEB rl1 26 -k i i:) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CD €), 28 C ))