High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of 'tr/andamus to d.eclaring the action of Respondent No.5 herein in not conducting de novo enquiiy under the provisions of T.S. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Acl 1977 notwithstanding a specific direction by Respondent No.4 to complete such exercise within 3 months from the date of the order i.e., Dated- 2O-O7-2019 by erroneously holding vide his order dated. 18-03-2020 that there is a civil disputL pending between petitioner and the 6th Respondent herein in o.S.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the learned Jr.civil Judge Thorrur in respect of agricultural land in sy.No.1117tstD area admeasuring Ac.2-2O gts situated in Village Perikavedu, Rayaparthy Mandal, warangal Rural District when in fact the said suit was dismissed by decree'dated. 01-08-2012 and same has become final, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts.14' 21 and 300(4) of the / // ,// constitution of lnclia anil as also the provisions of Telangana l:itate Assigned Lands Act 1977 ,as it"rended in 2007. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Ser;tion 151 cPC praying that in the circrnrstances stated in the affidavit filerJ ir support of the petition, the High court nray be pleased to direct the Respondr:nt No.5 to conduct de novo enquiry on our claims in respect of agricultural lancl ir Sy.No.1117l1lD atea admeasuring Ac.2-2O gts situated in Village Perikavedu, t?ayzrparthy Mandal, Warangal Rural Distrrct Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VIJAY ASHRIT Counsel for the Rer;rrondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made thr: iollowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BTIASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31O22 of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Pi:tition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "....to issue uti| direction or order more particularly in the nature of Wit of Mandamus to declaring ttrc action of respondent No.S herein in not conducting de nouo enquiry under the provisions o/ T.S Assrgned Lands Prohibitton of Ttansfers Act, 1977 notuitllstanding a specific direction bg respondent No.4 to complete such exercise within 3 months from the date of the order i e Dated 20.07.2019 bg enoneouslg holding uide- his order dated 18032020 that there is a ctuiL dispute pending betueen petitioner and the 6th respondent herein in O-S.No-119 oJ 20O9 on the file of the leqrned Jr. Ciuil Judge Thorntr in respect of agicultural land in 5U.No.1117/5/D area admeasuing Ac.2.2O gts situated in Village Peikauedu, RogaparthA Mqndal, Warangal Rurql Distict when in fact the said suit uas dismissed bg decree dated 01-O8.2012 and same has become final as being itlegal, arbitrary and violatiue of Arts 14 21 and 3OOA of the Constitution of lndia and as also tle prouisions of Telangana State Assigned Lands Act, 1977 as amended in 20O7....'

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri H. Somaiah Ezra Shastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos' 1 to 5 and perused the record.

3. It is stated that the petitioner, along with his brothers are the joint owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.2O gts in Sy.No.lLlT lSlD situated at Perikavedu Village, Rayaparthy Mandal, Warangal Rural District, having succeeded the same from his father, and the revenue authorities have issued I I 2 pattadar paristt )( ks in the name of the petitioner,s father irt respect '.- -- .1 I J I of the subjer;t L rr cl. It is further stated that disputing tt.e r.ight and entitlement of 1lre petitioner and others, over the subj.ct land, respondent No ( r (brother of the petitioner) institute.d a suit in O.S.No.119 rt l i)9 on the hle of the learned Junior ()iv I Judge, Warangal, sr:eJ<'g Fermanent injunction. It is further sfu:ted that when respo,de ,. 1tro.6 in active connivance with [he revcnue authorities Iiar ,l ulently got mutated his name i, tL e revenue records in re:;pe: t rtf the subject property, the petitioner hasi filed an appeal uncle r S r r .lion 5-B of the Telangana Right_. in Lt: nd. and Pattadar Pass It: okr; Act, l9T I (for short the Act, 19 / 1 before .) respondent No.4-the Revenue Divisional Officer, againsr. _hr. entries made in the oahirris in favour of respondent No.6 and olhcrs, and to incorporat(: hi-. natne as owner and possessor of thc s u tje ct land, and the sarlr: r'as ailowed uid.e order, dated O3.OIj.201g in Proc.Nos.A/ lt)8 1'.) )16 and A/636012O13 by cancelling th,: trrattadar passbooks arrcl r i rle deed issued in favour of the re:;pt,ndents therein and crire :tLng respondent No.S-the Tahs dar tc [ol]ow the assignment ru le s ,rrrder Section 4 of the A.p Assign:d Lands (Prd'hibition o' 'l:-;rrsfers) Act, 1977, and the guideli,es .ssued by the Governmell. i. is further stated that in pursualce of :hr same, respondent Nrr.li L as conducted enquiry and issuecl prrtcr.edings uide Rc.No.B/,1:lt ,'20 t8, dated B.O3.2O2O dismissing thc claim of n I ) the petitioner on the ground that the land admeasuring Ac. 1.23 in Sy.No. 1115 is the Government land classified as "Nagireddy Cheruvu" Shikham, and for the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas ln Sy.No. 1ll7 l5/B disputes are pending between the family members and a suit in o.S.No.1L9 of 2oo9.

4. Sri Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of passing of the order dated 18.03.2020, O.S.No.119 of 2OO9 was dismissed for non-prosecution

01.08.2011, and respondent No.6 has not taken any steps for restoration of the said suit, and no suit whatsoever is pending as on the date of passing of the order by respondent No.5.

5. It is evident that without taking into consideration of the said facts, respondent No.S-the Tahsildar, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the suit. Since it has been \ brought to the notice of this Court that O.S.No. 119 of 2009 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.08.2011, which is much prior to passing of the order dated 18.O3.2O2O, th.e order passed by respondent No.S is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of misreading of the facts. ! 1l 4

6. Learne'l cr, rns,el for respondent No.6 submitted tha t digital pattadar passbc c,.<s were issued to the respondent No.6 at rcl he is receiving various incerntives sanctioned by the Governmenl_.

7. In view ol hc above, since the pattadar passbr>c,ks, issued during the penrl: -cy of the writ petition does not create a 1y rrght in favour of respon,le nt No.6, this writ petition is aliowerl ser_ting aside proceedings uicre tc.\o.B/435/2olg, dated 1g.03.202() isr;ued by respondent Irio.I he Tahsildar. Respondent No.5 is d ire,:ted to conduct fresh cn rl r irr into the matter in accordance with lz'a, after issuing notice to t I u: 1>etitioner and respondent No.6 urrd t "t.p. for issuance ol plrr adar passbooks for the parties, who ar(r e ntitled. . "1. No order as to co;r ; As a scqr,:1, the miscelianeous petitions perLdir-rg, if any, shall stand clc s t,r1. //TRUE COPY// SD/. V.KAVITHA r DEPU'l Y REGISTRAR n., I SECTION OFFICER Telangana Hy rir.'rabad.

1. The Princioal S. )cr()tary, Revenue Department, Sdqletariat rlt l:jtate of 2. The District (l: l'ector, Warangal Rural District, Warangal. 3. The Joint rlollerrlor, Warangal Rural District, Warangal 4. The Revenue l:rivisional Officer, Warangal Rural District, W:lrargal. 5. The Tahsirdar, llayaparthy Mandal, Warangal Rural Distrirl VVarangal. 6. One CC lcr ll -l VIJAY ASHRIT Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to (lt' FOR ASSIGNMENT,High Courtforthe State of Telangana 8. Two CD C:op r,; Yy at Hyderabad IOUT-] To HIGH COURT DATED: 2010:112025 ) lF. S 14 14: ORDER WP.No.310212 of 2024 \. I I \ ,4r1/ci .i( ( I t ilAY 2025 i i ;l i,/ \ \',. 05- ;rn,",,.nrY' -*: ::_:-: --l. DISPOSED CIIF'THE WRIT PETITION WIT}{OUT COSTS \\c{f'L Yt ;-#