The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in No. 8/259/2025, dated 15-05-2025, through which ordering for resumption of the land of the petitioner an extent of Ac. 2.2O gts in Sy. No 3B/2' situated at Baisupally Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District now in Mahabubnagar District, without conducting any enquiry, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 27 -o3-2O25 and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia. consequently set aside the same, thereby direct the respondent authorities not to intermeddle in any manner in regarding with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above stated extent of the land. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed bythe respondent No.2 in No. Bl2sgt2o2s, dated 15- 05-2025, thereby not to intermeddle in any manner in regarding with the enjoyment of the petitioner over her agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.20 gts in Sy. No. 38/2, situated at Baisupally Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District now in Mzbabubnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER *,:- t i: t I ORDER THE HON'B LE SRI WSTICE C.V.B DY WRIT PETI TION No.16385 of2O2 This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in No. B/25912025, dated 1S-OS-2o2S, through which ordering for resumption of the land of the petitioner an extent ot Ac.2.2O gts in Sy. No. 3g/2, situated at Baisupally Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District now in Mahabubnagar District, without conducting any enquiry, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated, 27-Q3-2o25 and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary, illegat, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 2l of ttle Constitution of India. Consequently set aside the same, thereby direct the respondent authorities not to intermeddle in any manner in regarding with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above stated extent of the land, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bte Court may deem ht and proper in the interest ofjustice."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 2.2O gtrltas in Survey No.38/2, situated at Basiupally Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, the subject landJ, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed ,ide Document No. 1937 of 2OO4 dated 24.09.2004 and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed was also issued-cin her favour. It is further submitted that when the petitioner obtained an e-pattadar passbook, in the remarks column, the nature of the subject land was shown as 'assigned land'. It is further stated that when one Gorrenka peddababu and his family members are trying to interfere with the subject land, the petitioner filed a ') CVBR, J W.P.No.16385 of 2025 suit ,ide o.S.No.38 and 2o2l on the lile of the Junior civil Judge, parigi and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further stated that the 2na respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner uid.e No.B/259/2025 dated r3.03.2o2s to show cause as to why rhe subject land should not be resumed back in favour of the Government for violation of the provisions of Section 3(21 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Act, r97z (for short, 'the Act 9 ot rgzz\, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation 27.o3.2o2s. It is further stated that the 2.d respondent has issued the impugned order uid.e No.B /259 /2o2s dated 15.05.2025 for resumption of the subject land under Section 4(1) of the Act 9 of 1977, without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 27.03.2025 and without conducting any enquiry and without hearing the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the guise of the impugned order dated 15.05.2025, the 2,,d respondent and their staff are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nature of the subject land is not assigned land as depicted in the revenue records and the respondent authorities without taking into consideration of the N J CVBR, J W.P.No.16385 of 2o25 examination of the records have erroneously passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 under the provisions ofAct 9 of 1977.

5. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject land, which is an assigned land and prohibited for transfer as per the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent, after following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 and after issuing show cause notice dated 15.03.2025 and after considering the explanation dated 27.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner, has passed a reasoned order on 15.05.2025. It is further contended that since the petitioner has purchased the subject land, which is prohibited for transfer, the alleged registered Sale Deed uide Document No.1937 of 2OO4 dated 24.09.2004 relied upon by her is invalid in law and even the registering authorit5r who registered the said Sale Deed over the assigned land is liable for prosecution under Section 5(2) of the Act 9 of 1977, therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed an order dated

15.05.2025 for resumption of the subject land. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that against the order dated

15.05.2025 passed by the 2od respondent for resumption of the subject land, an appeal has been provided under Section 4A of the Act 9 of 1977 and'th.e' 1 petitioner instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal has hled the present writ petition. 4 CVBR, J- W.P.No.16385 of 2O25

6. It is seen from the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 that the respondent authorities have examined the subject land under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 and it is revealed that the petitioner has destroyed the tank bund passing through the tanks in Survey No.38 of Baispally Village, Gandeed Mandal. 7 . In view of the above said submissions, since there is a serious dispute with regard to the nature of the subject land, its classification and the petitioner being alleged to have purchased the subject land under registered Sale Deed uide Document No. 1937 of 2OO4 dated 24.09 .2OO4 , which is almost 21 years back, in view of the fact that alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the statute, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4A of the Act 9 of L977. Till the disposal of the said appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the subject land and the petitioner is also directed not to change the nature of the subject Iand in any manner, pending disposal of the appeal.

8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department' Secretariat Buildings' siate of T6langana' HYderabad' 2 The Tahsildar, Gandeed Mandal, Gandeed Proper and Mandal' Mahabubnagar District

3. One CC to SRt K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate. tOpUCl 4 Trruo_CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana TOUTJ

5. Two CD Copies. BSK BS \* HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 \ ORDER WP.No.16385 of 2025 ) 1Hr; S 14 ,6- o ) o o 24Jut,l zffi (4( > DsSPATCH EO 7 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g cad'b \tr- 1ffi16