The High Court · 2025

Petition under Arlicle 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in insisting for No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent herein for registration of the sale deed in respect of .agricultural land in Sy.No.224 lo an extent of Ac.6. 18gts situated at Kammeta Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was assigned to the Freedom Fighter Sri K.Narahari S/o. K.Balaiah under Proceedings No.B1/2610/67, dated 23.07.1968 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg), 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia' and consequenlly- direct the 4th Respondent to receive, register, and release the said document without reference to such NOC Prayer is amended as per C.O.dt.19.09.2025 in lA No.2/2025 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine uign cou r may oe pteaieJ to direct the 4th respondent to receive, register, an-d rere;r e the sare deed in respect of the land admeasuring chevella M-andal, Ranga Reddy District, wiihout iniisting uF,( n production of a i.ro "gu, objection certificate (Noc) from the District coilectoi, il nga Reddy District, pending disposat of the above writ petition. .Ac.6.1ggts in sy.No.224 )f Kammeta vi Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt p. RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Rt: '. FOR SRI MOHD SUBHAN PASHA Counsel for the Respondents: MRS. R. SNEHITHA REDDY, \SST. Gp REp. FOR SRI D.V. CHALAPATHI R,AO, GP F,: R ASSIGNMENT The Court made the foltowing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.24213 of 2o25 DATED : l6-L2-2O25 Between : K.Ramu and another. And ... Petitioners. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: ... Respondents. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : "...to declare the action of the 4th respondent in insisting for No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent herein for registration of the sale deed in respect of agricultural land in Sy.No.224 to an extent of Ac.6.1B gts., situated at Kammeta Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was assigned to the Freedom Fighter Sri K.Narahari, S/o.X.Baliiah under Proceedings No.8112610/67, dated 23.07.t968 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, t9(1)(g), 2t ind 300-A of the Constitution of India, and ionsequently direct the 4th respondent to receive, register, and release the said document without reference to such NOC..... 2. Heard Sri p.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned senior counsel representing rearned counsel for the petitioners Sri Mohd.subhan I \ Pasha and Mrs.R.snehitha Reddy, rearned As:l itant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Gove.r ment preader for Assignment Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao.

3. The learned counsel for the petitione- submits that the present Writ Petition challenges the illegal e:tion of the 4rh respondent in refusing registration of a sale deec in respect of the subject land by insisting upon a No Objection Cert ficate (NOC) from the 2nd respondent. The Iand was lawfully assigne< in the year 1968 to a freedom fighter, Sri K.Narahari, S/c. (.Balaiah, under Proceedings No.8112610/1967 dated 23.07.1968 , nd has remained in uninterrupted possession of his legal heirs for r ver five decades. The assignment was duly reflected in the revenue ecords. Upon the demise of the original assignee and his successo-;, succession and mutations were lawfully effected in favour of the p,: itioners and their family members. E-Pattadar passbooks and revenrr r entries stand in their names and the land is in peaceful possessi, r and continuous agricultural use, Official reports of the Mandal F! rvenue Inspector dated 15.10.2019 and the Tahsildar, Chevell: Mandal, dated

24.08.2020 and 03.03.2021 categorically confirrr the petitioners, title, possession and recommend issuance oF NC ( for land to an extent of Ac.7.O2 gts, the remaining extent being cO ,ered by a road. 7 Page 3 ol7 (a) Despite the above, the 2nd respondent failed to act even aFter an interim direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.29962 of 2023 directing consideration of the Tahsildar's report. Subsequently, when the petitioners attempted to register a sale deed, the Bhu- Bharathi portal blocked slot booking by showing the land as "prohibited" and the 4th respondent refused registration solely on the ground of non-production of an NOC. There is no statutory requirement under the Registration Act, 1908, or any other law mandating an NOC for registration of lands assigned to freedom fighters prior to the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, particularly where the land has remained undisputed for decades. This Court, in Chittoor Damodar Das Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No.9232 of 2O2l), has held that such lands cannot be retained in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and do. not require an NOC in the absence of any dispute with the Government. (b) The insistence on an NOC and the consequent refusal to register the document are arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 2l,and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, having no efficacious alternative remedy, are constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdi: ion of this court under Article 226, seeking appropriate reliefs.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Gc yernment pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Governr tent pleader for Assignment, opposing the present writ petition, sLrl mits that the writ petition is premature, as the petitioners, request ; presenfly under consideration by the competent authority in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assignment-I) Del ,artment, dated

04.07.201.6, which governs the procedure for pe.r itting registration of assigned lands. The land continues to )e reflected as assigned/prohibited land in the revenue and Bh, Bharathi records and until the District collector, being the conr letent authority, verifies the nature of assignment, compliance w t 1 conditions and absence of any subsisting Government claim. the registering authority is legally bound by the prohibitory list u- ier section 22-A of the Registration Act, 19oB and cannot receive t1e document for registration. The insistence on an Noc is a procedL ral safeguard and not an arbitrary exercise of power and reco nmendations of subordinate revenue officials do not confer any v€,: ted right on the petitioners. Further, the case of the petitioners is urr ler consideration 7 and the same would be examined and considered in terms of GOMS No.279.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and upon perusal of the record, this Court, without adjudicating upon the merits of the rival claims, is of the considered view that the interests of justice would be served by directing the competent authority to consider the petitioners'case in accordance with law.

6. It is clarified that the requirement of an NOC is not automatic and serves only as a procedural mechanism to enable the registering authority to act in conformity with the prohibitory lists under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. While considering the petitioners' claim under G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016, the competent authority shall specifically examine whether any statutory provision or binding executive instruction mandates production of an NOC, having regard to the date and nature of the assignment, the purpose of the grant, and the extent of uninterrupted possession.

7. It is further clarified that assignments made in favour of freedom fighters stand on a distinct footing. Where such assignment predates the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) F\ Page 6 of6 Act, 1977 and there is no allegation of brr rch of assignment conditions or subsisting Government claim, tre authority shall independently assess whether insistence on n NOC is legally warranted or merely procedural. such asses:ir lent shall not be mechanicar or based sorery on revenue or registr ltion portar entries and any decision shaI be supported by cogent rr asons traceabre to law. B. Accordingly, the 2rd respondent Distrrr t Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to consider the petitiorr rrs,case strictry in accordance with law. including G.O.Ms.No.279 r ated 04.07.2016, after issuing notice to the petitioners and all r cncerned parties, affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and t ) pass a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably wittr I sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9 In the result, with the above observati ) ts and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. No coj s. applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismiss:d. Interlocutory d/.I ,.C SULEKHA DEVI II; IANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of T Hyderabad. 2. The Dislricl Collector, Ranga Reddy Districl at Kongara Kalan. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Drvision, Ranga Reddy Di: t ct. 4. The Tahsildar, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. One CC to SRI l\,,lOHD SUBHAN PASHA, Advbcate [OPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the State of Tet,rr gana. [OUT] 7. Two CO Copies nga r r Secretariat, BN HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 ORDER WP.No.24213 of 2025 /. /.. : ')" -' 16ffiil*s-- 2tt l.t,.; ( I t:., t i1l ,l -... DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 10 ,^