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 the natqre of Writ of Mandamus declaring impugnqd proceeding in letter No.E3l'1035-32 12021 daled 14-6-2022 keeping the subject land in Sy. No.298 admeasuring Ac.2-26 gts situated at B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandal and Districtasillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalconsequentlytosetasidethe proceedingNo.No.E:3/1035-32t2021da|edl4t6t2O22ofrespondenl'No.2keeping the subject land in lSy. No 29B admeasuring keeping the subjer':t land in Sy' No.2gSadmeasuringAc.2-26gtssituatedatB.MadharamVillagesUryapetMandal and District in the prohibition list. A NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition unde: 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 suspend the proceerJing Nq E3/1035'32 t2O21 dated 1418,]2022 keeplng the subject land in Sy. tllo 298 admeasur:ing !-a?-ZQ g!9 situate{ at p Madharam Village, suryapet Mandal and Diqtrict ip the prohibi!!99 list pending disposal pf the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitiongfs: SRI RAMAKRISHNAK-- Counsel for the Rqspondent !{os.1 TO 5: QP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respo4dent Nos.6 TO 10:'SBl A'PRABHAKAR RAO The C-qurt mqde thq followingl ORP.-ER -$' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.315OO of 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "....to issue an appropiate WiL Order or direction more partiatlarly one in the noture of Wnt of M<tndamus declaing tmpugned proceeding in tetter No.E3/ 1O3532/ 2021 dated 14.6.2022 keeping the subject land in Sg.No.298 admeasuing Ac.2.26 gts situated at B.Madhoram Village, Suryapet Mandql and Distict as illegal, arbitrary qnd unconstitutional con s,equentlA to set aside the proceeding No-83/ 103532/2O21 dated 14/6/2022 of respond.ent No.2 keeping tLE subject Land in Sg.No.298 admeasuring keeping the subject land in Sg.No.298 admeasuing Ac.2.26 gts situated at B.Madharam Vittage, Suryapet Mandal and Distict in the prohibition list...."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that petitioner No.2 is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 16.08 guntas in Sy.No.298 situated at B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandal and District, having acquired the same by way of succession. It is further stated that petitioner No.2, along with his family members have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 15931 of 2021, dated 10. 11.2021 in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.298lEE/5 situated at B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandal and District. The case of the petitioners is that when third I 2 parties are irl[erfering with their possession, they hav: instituted O.S.No.2 o1' 2',022 on the file of the Additional Disr rict Judge, Suryapet anrl the same is pending for adjudication. -t rs further case of the pe titioners that acting on the letter, dated 37 .O5.2O22 issued by rr spondent No.4-the Tahsildai, Suryapet, and report dated 04.06 1]022 submitted by respondent No.3-tf e Revenue Divisional C)fficer, Suryapet, respondent No.2-the Distri,:;t Collector, issued impr-rgned proceedings in ietter No.E3/ lO35-321 2O2l, dated

14.06.2022 di'-ecting respondent No.S-the Sub-Registrar', Suryapet, to list lancl tr an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.2()8/EE/5 in prohibited F,r,rcerties list and not to entertain any sale trlnsaclions.

4. Learnerl counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that before lisl ing the said lands in the list of prohibitec properties, respondent No.2 has neither issued notice to the pet'tioners nor preceeded t,v 1ny enquiry, therefore, the action on the part of the respondent N,r.2 in listing the subject property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Regis.-ration Act, 1908, (for srhcrt 'Act, 19O8J amounts to violation of p,rinciples of natural justice -

5. Sri A. I)rabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appearing for the unofficial respondents vehemently contended that the petitioners are not having any piece of iand and the extent of land p:>ssessed by . -.,i..-rr..ji*il**:*i -;;.;- .f il&&X**!i*;!:r., . J them has been disposed of in favour of the third parties, and by creating hctitious documents, the petitioners are submitting applications for registration in respect of the subject property. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 has issued impugned proceedings in letter No.E3/ 1035-3 2l2o2l, dated

14.06.2022 after calling report from the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Offrcer for listing the property to an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.298 in the prohibitory list, and the procedure / adopted by respondent No.2 is in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder, and there is no illegality or legal inhrmities warranting interference of the orders passed by respondent No.2.

6. A careful examination of the proceedings dated 14.06.2022 issued by respondent No.2 would reveal that no notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioners before listing the said property in the prohibitory list and there are no adverse orders prohibiting the subject property for registration or for transfer of the said property \ in terms of the Standing Order No.21?- issued by the Registration Department. It is settled law that so far as the private parties are concerned, unless prohibitory orders are issued by the competent Court and the requirements of Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 tias been satisfied for listing in the prohibitory list, the Registering I I 4 Authority or 1.he District Collector is not having an1 right or authority to list the properties in prohibitory list. Horve ver, while passing the imprugneri order for listing the subject property in the prohibitory properties list, respondent No.2 has not exa;nined the said aspects i rd no notice has been issued to ihe petitioners, and therefore, the irnpugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

7. In vierv of the above, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice '"vould be met if respondent No.2-the District C,:rllector is directed to exarnine the claim of the petitioners as rvr:Il as the unofficia,l respondents after issuing notices and pass appropriate orders in acccrdance rvith law.

8. With the eLbove observations, this writ petition is di:;posed of. No order as to oosts. As a se,fuel, the miscellaneous petitions pendin g, if any, shall stald r:losed. ^ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ["\;"r,'b,.i.'** 1. The Princi pal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sec retariat Hyderabad, State //TRUE COPY// N To SD/..T. JAYASREE \ 2 c 4 5 6 7 o o PSK. BS of Telang ana the District Collector, Suryapet District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, SurvaDet District. The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub - Regidtrir, Sury5pet, Suryapet District. The S-u^b-Reg]stra r, S u ryapet, S urya pet Distrilt' One CC to SRI RAMAKRiSHNA.K, Advocate IOPUCI Lwg CQr t9 Qe lpR REVENUE, High Court fbr the State of Tetangana, at Hvderabad IoUTI thu 99 to Sht n FRnBHAKAR RAo, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies $ I z C) .L .A t HIGH GOURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER \4IP.No.31500 of 2022 HC SIAI s 1 ( c J 3 15 APB Zlffi t .!f9o616*t o -=- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .} ?' w €