High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or.Direction, more particularly one in ihe nature of Writ'of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in incluOing thethe petitioners land to an exient of Ac.1t0 gts in Sy.No. 12gl2l4 situated"a-ArepalliVillage,KarimnagarMandalandDistrictinprohibitory properties list in the DharJri. Portal without any notification so as to attract the iroiirion under Sec.22-A of Stamps any Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of 14 and 300-A of constitution of lndia and consequently direct i6" n"rponO"nt Ncs.2 to 4 to remove the petitioner's property from the prohibitory lA NO:'t OF 2023 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect ihe Respondent Nos.2 io 4 to remove the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.1.30 gt. in sy r.{o.r 20214 silualed at Arepalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District irom the'prohibitory list, forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition --7 l'I Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.V CHALAPATHI RAO Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY- PETITION No.22381 of 20123 z/ ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the action of' the respondents in including the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.i.30 guntas in Survey No.l2Ol2la situated at Arepalii Village, Karimnagar Manda-l ald District, in prohibitory properties list in the Dharani Portal, without any notification so as to attiact the provision under Sectio n 22-A of the Registration Act, 19O8 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that originally arr extent of Acs.3.OO in Survey No.120 of Arepalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District was assigned in favour of the petitioner's great grandfather vide proceedings No.Dis.B8/9064 /57 d,ated 30.12.1957 and since then he has been in possession and enj oy,rnent of the said land. It is further stated that after his demise, the said property was portioned between his two sons i.e., Khaja Ali and Bashu Miya. It is stated that the land which fell to the share of Khaja Ali, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner, has been given to her husband and his name has also been recorded in the revenue records and pattadar pass books has also been issued in his 2 \ favour. It ir; further stated that after the demise of the petitioner's husband on 26.07.2OO8, the property to an r::xtent of Ac.2.29 guntas has been recorded in the name of the p()titioner and the re\/er1ue authorities aiso issued new pattad ar pass .books in her f avour. The grievance of the petitioner .is lhat due to financial nr:,:essities, she intended to give the said ..and for development and accordingly entered into deve..opment agreement vritLL the third parties, but when the developer has approached the municipal authorities seeking permis,sion to develop the [and, they refused to entertain the said appilication on the ground that the property to an extent of Ac. 1.3C guntas in Survey No L2O /2 I a has been inciuded in the prohibited properties list, rvhich constrained the petitioner to a:rproach respondent I'los.2 to 4 requesting to delete the said property from the prohibited properties list, but they declined t() do so, on the ground l.hat it is an assigned land and therefore it is not alienable.

3. Learnerl (lounsel for the petitioner vehemently c,.rntends that the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Tr,:msfers) Act, 1977 carne into force in the year 1977, wlrcreas the subject land was assigrred way back in the year 1957 and as srrch, no such prohibition of transfer/ aiienation was imposed on the FI 3 subject land. Learned counsei further contends that when there is no condition prohibiting alienation of the subject land, the petitioner is entitled for treating the said lands as patta land, but the respondents, without taking into consideration the said aspects, have wrongly included the subject property in the prohibi ted properl-ies [isr.

4. Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, has not disputed that the assignment was granted in favour of the great grandfather of the petitioner vide proceedings No.Dis.B8/9064 /52 dated, 30.12.1957 i.e, prior to thc notification issued by the Government vidc G.O.Ms.No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958. Further, learned Government Pleader submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment rendercd by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of latter Sent from Plot No.338, Etc. n. Coltector & District Magistratet; the Stare has filed Special Leave petition on the file of the Honble Supreme Court against the judgment T Y rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of I*tter Sent from Plot No.338, Etc. (l supra) and the same is pending; and since there is no interim order granted by the I zootls; alo ozo 1on; f I Honble Suprene Court in the Special kave Petition, in various cases relating to assignments granted under the Laori Rules, this Court h,as follovred the principle laid down by th: Division Bench in tfLe case of !,etter Sent from Plot No.3i?8, Etc (srpra).

5. In view'o1 the aJoresaid submissions and since t-he facts of the present case are squarely covered by the said j'..dgment rendered by th.e Division Bench of this Court in the case of I*tter Sent.from Plot No.338, Etc (supro/, follorving the same and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposecl of clirecting the respondr)nl.s to examine the case of the petitior Lers for deletion of ttre subject land to an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas in Survey No.l'.ZO/214 situated at Arepalli Village, Kan rnnagar- I\,landal and District, from the prohibitory properties lis t in the Dharari Pbrl-al ald for consequential issuancc <.rf oattadar pass books in their ttrvour, in accordance u,ith law. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shal I staad closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L. LAKSHMI B DEPUTY REGIST AB R SECTION FFICER To,

5. 6 7 KKS The Principal Siecretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderrabad The District Coller;tor, Karimnagar District. The Revenue Dirrsional Officer, Karimnagar Division Karimnag,ar District The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Mandal Karimnagar District. One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to Glr F:OR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. Two CD Cooies; Q ,L ' I '', HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 oa 1HE sl ( r j (J .c t 'tlr .i: I 5u t (] C, ORDER WP.No.22381 of 2023 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+ f,* v\