High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more parlicularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, ...RESPONDENTS a) to declare the inaction of the fourth respondent in not releasing the mortgage deeds / bonds of petitioners lands situated in the Survey Nrt. .144. .145 and -146 of ldikuda village, chandur mandal, Nalgonda District inspite of the loans obtained by the petitioners for purchasing the said lands are waived off by the first respondent, as has been confirmed by the third respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unJUSt apart from violative of principles of natural justice. b) to consequently direct the fourth respondent to forthwith rerlease the mortgage deeds /bonds of the petitioners lands situated in Survey lJo .144, 145 and 146 situated in ldikuda village of chandur mandal, Nalgonda District by issuing clearance letters lo Registering Authorities i.e., respondent lro 5 herein. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the ci|cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith release the mortgage bonds ide,erls to the petitioners by issuing clearance letter i.e., clearance of the loan and urterest under the debt waiver scheme, pendrng disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 4: SRt T.V.RAMESH, SC FOR SCFCL Counsel for the Respondent No.3, 5 & 6: Gp FOR REVENUE: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3O939 of 2O2S ORDER: Fleard Sri B. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, for respondent No.1; Sri T.V. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6.

2. Wherr the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lis in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated

13.1 1.2015 in W.P.No.24590 of 2015 and the same is not disputed by thc learned Government Pleaders and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. In view of the same and for reasons alike, this Writ petition is allorned in terms of the order dated 13.11.2015 in W.p.No.2459O of 2015 It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that one of the/some of the loanee(s) has/have died. Therefore, legal heir certificate(s) of such loanee(s) has to be filed in order to claim the doctrments. There sha,ll be no order as to costs. \ \ 2 Y-.1 -

4. The office is directed to append a copy ol the order dated

13.11.2015 in !V.l).No.24590 oi 2015 to this Writ. Pt:tition for readv reference Pending miscellaneous applications, if any. sha| star-id closed. To, o,3,'JiI*oflA[t,TiHtl //rRUE COPY// d SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Co-operatron Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2 The Vice chairman and. rr/anaging Director, State schecrured caste Finance State of Telanqana. Corporalion L imited, Hyderabaci'. Society Limited. Natgonda, Natgonda Oisirrct.

3. The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 4. The Executive Director, District schedured caste Servrce co-operative - -- 5. The Tahsildar, Chandure [,4andal, Nalgonda Disstrict. 6- The Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda, Nalgoncla District. 7. One CC to SRt PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANT, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI T.V RAMESH, SC FOR SCFCL [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderahrad [OUT] 10 Two ccs ro cP FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

11. Two CD Copies N2 BSR (Along with the copy of order dated 13.11.2015, in w.r).No.24s90 or 2o1s) .- \ \l -- 'r-- q CC TODAY :a. HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER :i': ) I ..1- tv.\ v) s \s \ F.\ WP.No.30939 of 2025 r.) !41!' .,9- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS , \D \) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAI\iIACHANDRA RAO WP.No-221590 ol 2015 ORDER Heard Sri N. Krishna Rao, counsel for petitioners, and Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-Corporation

2. The pelitioners belong to Scheduled Caste community and for their benefit an extent of Acs.64.04 cents in Sy.Nos.1741, 1742, 1746, 1747, 1748 and 1749 of Kolanupaka Village, Aleru Mandal, Nalgonda Districl was acquired by the then State of Andhra Pradesh in 1998 and then allotted to petitioners by sub- dividing the lands into small holdings, the details of which are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. They contend that sale deeds were executed in their favour by the State Government by collecting the market value from them from out ot loans granted to petitioners by respondent nos.2 and 3 on a mortgage of the title deeds of lands which are in the custody of 3rd respondent. Thus, all the petitioners are owners of land. There was a mortgage in respect of the land in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3 entitling respondent nos.2 and 3 to retain the title deeds trll the loan is cleared by petitioners.

3. On account o[ drought, and other events causing hardship to farmers like the petitioners prior to 2010, the Government of Andhra Pradesh waived the loan taken by farmers such as petitioners up to Rs.1,00,000/- payable to respondent nos-1 and

2. This was communicated Io each of the petitioners by a letler sent through Certificate of Posting on 31 .12.2010.

4. Notwithstanding the lact that there are no subsisting loa I dues in respect of each of the petitioners warranting retention of the mortgage deeds/title deeds by respondent nos.2 anl 3, the respondent nos.2 and 3 continued to retarn the same rleoriving petitioners of opportunity to take any tresh loans on ltre lands allotted to them or to transfer the same. This aclion of the respondents is impugned in the Writ Petition.

5. The petitioners contended that inaction on the part of respondents in not issuing clearance certificates rn sp tr: of the loans ol petitioners having been waived with interest. ir; rllegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative ol principles of natural jLrstice; the respondents are estopped by the letters sent through Certificate of Posting on 31 .1 2.201O. waiving the lc ans of petitioners; and therefore, they seek a directiori tc 3|,d respondent to forthwith release the mortgage deeds,/bonds of their loans in the above survey numbers by issuing clearance certif icates to 4th respondent.

6. The counsel for petitioners reiterated lhe above submissicns

7. The learned Standing Counsel for respondenl nos.2 and 3 has filed a co u nte r-affidavit stating that they are entitled to ret,tin the mortgage deedsibonds notwithstanding the waiver of loans of petitioners having regard to the scheme of allotment to them, since the purpose ol the scheme would be defeatecl if the beneficiaries of the scheme such as the petitioners sell the lands and again become landless agricLrltural labourers. Refen:rce is made to a letter dt.04.05.2010 of the Vice-Chairmar and lr/anaging Director of znd re:;ponde nt-Corporation wlrich acknowledges that the waiver of loan makes lhe beneficiaries of the scheme, such as the petitioners, loan-free from the District Societies, but states that the lands cannol be made available for sale by petitioners since they are members of the District Societies under the land purchase scheme, dnd are governed by the instructions issued by 2nd respondent by a circular dt.O1.08.2005. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of 2nd respondent directed not to release the lands from the mortgage of District Societies and keep the mortgage deeds in the sate custody of 3'd respondent. Relying on this communication, the respondents contended thal even though the documents of title in respect of the lands are in the names of petitioners and even though their loans have been waived under the loan waiver scheme, the respondents are entitled to retain the mortgage deeds/bonds. 8 The learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-Corporation reiterated the above submissions

9. I have noted the submissions of both sides

10. There is no dispute that by a letter dt.04.05.2010 lhe Vice- Chairman and lvlanaging Director of 2nd respondent-Corporation instructed all the Executive Directors that on account of loan waiver by the State Governmenl the mo(gage ol the persons, such as the petitioners who are allottecl lands under the land purchase scheme, would end and the beneficiaries such as the petitioners would become loan-free, ancl the land registered in their names would become their own land. 1 l. One can understand the conduct ol the respondents in retaining the mortgage deeds/bonds, if lhere are subsisting loarrs, due by the petitioners. But once the loans of petitioners hat,e been waived by the State, under Law, lhe respondenls are no entitled to retain the mortgage deeds/bonds and such..action ,,rrhatever be its laudable objective, violates Article .l 4 and 300 ,\ of the Constitution of lndia. Since it is not disputed that petitioners are owners of the plots allotted to thern, any restraint on pctitoncrs to sell the said lands would violate Section 1 1 of the Tra nsfer of Property Act, 1882, and the pelitioners are entitled to ignore any restraint on lheir right to alienate or encumber the land irrposed by respondents. The respondents are also not enlitled lo retain the mortgage bondsideed executed by petitionerl, since admittedly lhe loans of all petitionr:rs have been warvcc by the State Government,

12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is declared lhat the 3rd respondent is not entitled to withhold the rrr lrtgage deeds/bonds of petitioners' properties after the loans of petitioners have been waived by 1st respondent. Conse,cluently, the 3rd respondent rs directed to forthwith relsase the rn()rtgage deeds/bonds to pelitioners by issuing clearance certrficates to 4th respondent.

13. Accordingly. the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, rn tlris Writ Petition shall stand closed. J USTICE M.S.RAMACHANDR,\ RAO