The High Court · 2025

,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of the respondents No. 4 to 6 herein in entertaining the registrations of the agricurturar rand in sy. No.5/33 to an extent of Ac.08.00, situated at peddanapa[i Viilage, Kasipet Mandar, Mancheriar District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the of petitioners Representation daled 1BlOGl2O24 2nd .resPondent forthwith. to disPosed IA NO: 10F 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstarlcesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to directtherespondentsNo.4to6nottoentertainingtheregistrationsofthe agricultural land in Sy No. 5/33 to an extent of Ac 08 00' situated at Peddanapalli Village, Kasipet Mandal, Mancherial District pending disposal of tl-re above Writ Petition. IA NO :2OF 2024 Between: Ram Mohan Rao, Aged. Maior' Occ' Real Estate glTlze,'Ei;i"0 S.-Ei. H. I a"ttrmfallv rovrn, Mancherial

1. D.Brahma Rao. S/o Business, Rl/o. H.No District. P.satvanaravana Rao' S/o. SomasekharF?9' fsed Maior' Or:c Real Estate Brrsin'ess. Ric. H.No. 9-1-2gi,"ii;h;i'S*'B:H aEiitnp'ttv Town' tvlancherial District. 2 ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS No'7&8 AND 1 2 J 4 A Sriveni Padrna, D/o. Ankulu, Aged about 50 years, occ. Housewife, R/o. il ii;.'ii_irrt, peoian"priiiviira"ge, Kistpet Mahdal, Mancherial District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER The State ()f Telangana, Rep' by its Principal Secretary' Revenue o"iili,j,.jit, tj, 'ri.R. A;ij"oriil riinginu stut,i Secretarrat,- Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Mancherial District, at Mancherial' TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,MancherialDivision'MancherialDistrict' The Tahsilda-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar, Kasipet Mandal' Mancherial District'

6. The Sub-Registrar, Mancherial, Mancherial District' 7. The Sub-Registrar, Luxettipet, Mancherial District' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under 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 vacate the interim order dated 25-10-2024 inwp No.28864 0f 2024 and dismiss the wiit petition by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : Gp FoR srAMps AND REGrsrRATroN Counsel for the Respondents No.7&8 : SRt p.LAKSHMA REDDY The Court made the foltowing: ORDER ,l THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITI ON No.28864 of2024 ORDER This t rit pelition has been fi1ed seeking the foilorving prayer 'to is;:utt a ',;,rit order or direction more Parlia arll' one it llrc nature o.f lyrit qf Marulamus lo declare the action of lhe resporulant Nos 4 to 6 lrcrein in entertoifiilg the registrqtions ofthe agricultural land irt Sy.No.5/-'3 k) on exlenl oJ' Ac.r),\-00 situated ot Peddanapallt Village, Kosipet Mandal, Morherial Distrid os illegal arbitrary and in violalion oJ principlc't ol' Nutural Justice .tnd Ln violatton of Articles 21 and 300-A ofthe Constittrtion ol' Inrlia attd conseqtLtll.r, to direcl the 2"d respondenl lo LlisPose of Pctitio er'\ Ile p resenta t i o n ia tnd I 8/0 6/2 02 4 forthwith "

2. The brief lacts of the case are that the petitioner's grandfather Talla Mutyalu hrrd three sons namely; Talla Ode1u, Talla Rzrmulu and Thalla Ankulu and \/as the original pattedar and possessor of the agriculture land Ln Sy.No.5/33 to an extent of Ac.8-0O -';ituated at Peddanapalli Viltage, Kasipet Mandal, Mancherial District (hereinafter referred as "subject land"). After his demise, the above lands have been devolved amol6l his three sons and after restoring tLIe entries, petitioner has rrccn cultivating the lands and was in r;ontinuous possession. TL ereafter, respondent Nos.S and 6 vide order dated

12.02.2013 in l)roceedings No.A/2016/O9 had passed the following order. The relevant portion of the same is extracted for better understanding of the case, which is as under: "[n vierv of the above a fresh enquiry conducted in thc ligl'Lt of POT Ac, 1977 in response to the form-I and Form-II notices the legal heirs of the assignee and the purchasers responded as 2 directed to the Hon,ble High Court of A.p.Hyderabad it is decided the mutation orders sanctioned in favour of the purchasers are illegal and contrary to the pOT Act, ISZZ over the said Iand in Sy.No.5/33 extent Ac.g-00 acres of peddanpalli viltage ot Kasrpet Mandal is cancelled and directed to the Viltage Revenue Ofhcer, Peddanapalli to take necessary action and enter/correct the name in Revenue Records while restoring the name of the assignee as directed by the Hon,ble High Court ot A-p.Hvderabad.,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject lands are government lands however, no record has been filed evidencing the mutation of the petitioner in the revenue records.

4. This Court vide its order dated 25.10.2024 has passed an order, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as uncler: " That grievance of the petitioner is that in violation of the above said provisions, even after listing the said property in the prohibited properties list as per the Dharani Portal, the respondents are entertaining the registration over the subject property al1d they are liable for prosecution under the Section 7 (2) (a) of the Act. In view of the same, as the Sub_Registrar is not havrng any right to proceed to entertain the registration on the assigned lands, the District Collector is directed to conduct an enquiry and file a report before this Court for initiating suitable action against the Sub-Registrar within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Meanwhile, there shall be interim direction to respondent Nos.S and 6 not to entertain any documents presented for registration in respect of property in Sy.No.5/33 to an extent of Ac.g_OO guntas in any manner, which according to the petitioner is in the prohibited property list ald also assigned laads.,

5. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court on

04.I2.2024 passed the following order :. 3 'snbsequent to the interim order dated 25 lO'2O24' v'her''in thisCourthasobservedthegrievanceofthepetitionerthateven after listing thc subject property in the prohibited propet ties list as per the Dharani Portal, the respondents are entertaining ihe registratron ()\'er the subject property and they are liable for prosecution under the Section 7 (2) (a) of the act' the Distlict Collector hes filed a report stating that based on the'submissions' of the Sub ReEaistrar, the subject land is not prohibite'l frrm alienation.sincetheDistrictCollectoristhecompetelltauthority to decide tLe issues of placing or deleting of the subject land in lhe prohibitorl' Iist, counter of the District Collector is necessi'try' Hence, ttre District Collector is directed to ftle his counter \\'ithin a period of two $'eeks. However, the parties' if any aggrieved by placing the subject lands in the prohibitory list' may also parallely make an]. application under Section 22 (41 of the Registration r\ct' 1908 to tht District Collector bringing the grievances " Thereafter, a report dated 14.11.2024 has been subnlitted by the 6. Collector and District Magistrate, which has beer-r placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader and in the report it is submitted as undcr: "Cc,nsidering the report submitted by the RDO' Mancherial' revenuerecords,thesubmissionsmadebytheSub-Registrar' Luxettipet coupled with the rival submissions made by the counsels for the pelitioner and the respondent No 7 and duly considering the stand takon bl' the Hon'ble High Court in a catena of judgments' it is concluderi that the subject tand bearing SyNo5/33 of Peddanap,rlii vLllage of Kasipet Mandal to an extent of 8 00 Ac/tfts is a governnlent land rvhich was assigned to Thalla Ramulu and his nameiSr,]flectedintheTeensalapalanioftheyearlg55-58rvhich is prior to coming into force of provisions of non-alienabil itv of assignecl lands as contemplated in G O Ms No 1406' dated 19.11.199 1. the land was sold away by the assignee Sri Talla Ramulu ilr favour of the Respondent No 7 and the Respondenl No B and later- the said agricultural land was converted to non 4 agricultural purpose vide R.D.O Mancherial No.RC/295 1 /B/ Z 80 I 14, dated 02.o2.2014." proceedings

7. The said report of the District Collector, Mancherial has been Itled by way of a memo by learned Government preader for Revenue. In the said memo a copy of the land conversion proceedings No.Rc.F.2951/B /z\o /14 of the competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, dated OZ .02.2014 has been l-iled and the Collector has also issued a letter to the Secretary of Government vide its proceedings No.B3/236/2O17 dated 03.06.2O1T requesting to issue directions to S.R.O.Mancherial to register the lands prior to 195g under laoni rures lg5o and in the said letter the corlector submitted that as per Chesaal pahani, the names of the Original pattedars were implemented and they were assigned the said lands under Special Laoni Rules, 195O a,nd in the pahanies since 1gg3_g4 to current year, the classification of the iand was mentioned as patta land. Further, as per the Special Laoni Rules, 1950 the Lands were assigned prior to 1958 without the condition that the land is not alienable, hence it presumed that the lands assigned prior to 195g under Special Laoni Category can be alienable. The copies of the relevant documents are submitted herewith for.. js5p4n66 of NOC over the land bearing Sy.No.5/33 i.e., subject land, as per the rules laid down under the Act. Thereafter, the Government of reiangana vide Memo d,ated, rz.og.2or1 has issued Noc basing on the letter of District colector, Malcherial dated 03.O6.2017 and has clarified that the assignment of the lands is. 5 prior to 1958 anrl rvithout the condition of non-alienability they need not be prohibited from alienation' As such Learned corlttsel appearing for respondents would further submit 8. that the petitior-rer has no locus standi and no document has been filed in support of his case and no revenue records has been hlerl and that the subject lands by virtue of the information of the District Collector and the issuance: ol NoC by respondent No'1' the subject la,ds can be prayer sought in the present writ petitton 1S registered and tl-re misconceived ln view of the foregoing discussion' the petitioner has no locus g. standi and no rlocuments have been filed in support of his case and having regard to the above reasons' this writ petition is disrrrissed lt is needless to mention that if the petitioner is otherwise aggrieved on the very title, liberlr is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available under law'

10. Accordin11ly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' No order as to costs' Miscellarreous applications' if any pending' shall stand closed' SD/.T. TIRU MALA i,EVI oP\:q- *' GISTRAR //TRUE GOPY// ',J \=",,o* OFFICER To, 1 One CCto SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE' Advocate tOPUCl 2 Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION' High Court for the State of Telangana. [oU ll One CC to SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY' Advocate lOPUCl 3 4. Two CD CoPies s BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ORDER WP.No.28864 of 2024 #. E S-rr r._< t q 2 5 f1 BA 2[ 25 t t) E Ps C.T r.r9o- z o J+ I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS oo{.} WY