1. Banoth Ramamurthy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioners from the land to an extent of Ac.0- 30 gts., in Sy.no.136/2 0f petitioner nos. 1 to 3, an extent of Ac.0-25 gts in Sy.no. 13611 of petitioner no.4 and an extent of Ac.0_25 gts, in Sy no '136/3 0f petitioner no.5 situated at Edurapuram Revenue virage, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, in pursuance of impugned notices (1) RC. No C/910t202!i-1 dt.12-10_2O25; (2) RC.No. Ctg1Ot2O25_2 ctt.12- 10_2025 and (3) RC No ciglO12025-2 dt.12-10- 2025 issued by the respondent no 5 pending disposal of thr: Writ petition in the interest of lustice. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI M V HANUMANTHA RAO counsel for the Respondents: SRr L. RAVTNDER, AGp FoR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENIJGOPAL WRIT PETITI ON No.31 707 0F 2025 ORDER: This W..it Petition is liled undcr Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, seeking thc lollou ing relief/ s: - '... Lc rssue wril, ofder ot dlreclron prei':rirbL-r \\rit rrl-nl:rndamus dcclariilg rlr.Il to 1025 {21 i-p.,g.,"d notices i e itt ne'rto L/oiu"lu5-i 2 cit th" Bc.N".5lsrolzoz5-2 dr.12 iO :O:'' 'tna ('l) RC i ', '7t)10/2025 sr'iljecr land io an- n rc 2A25 issued b)- thc resporLcJtnt n'r 5 Irr rr-"r'' r . e:<ient of Ac.0-30 gt", i" :;*tr-,l'i'loil ol pcrrtr' n '; 6''* I 3' :Ln extcnt o[ " I ''n'1 "' 'r\Lcrti Ji \' o l:) gts' irl n..o-is g* in St ; 136/ 1 ol pctLLtuirct rt Ed Lr'rpurirril Rc''entLc vil[:rgc' Sv no.t36,/3 of petitloner "o '"t''t'tJ il;"i lil"a"i. r..n"..,,-'"m Drsr-rict a' lllegal' :IrbiL"r+'. \\.iLhouL iiJ;;; authority, CiscriminaLory u"ti uicltnttt'tt of prlntrolt:s ol nairtraL lrrsticc and i"tl r'''" sttch orher (jI- fLLrther aa"a"qr'""rfy seL aside rh" stkl ""r'tt't or,iers,-." 5 'r,J ''1.

2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Vina\- I(umar' Iearned senior counsel i-epresenting Mr.M.V.Hanumantha Rao' [earned counse] for the petitioners, Mr.L.Ravinder, learneci Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Fieader for Revenue appea-ring for resPondents'

3. Learned senior coullsel appearing on behalf of petiticners contends that respondcnt No 5/ the 'lahsildar vide impugned notices dated' 12 rc'2023' directed the petitioners to submit their rvritten explanations for violation of the the assignment assignment condition No 2 of Patta' as to made shall not be cancelled and lo resume back the lar-ld to "r'hr'- o Gor-ernmcnl custodr., and directecl the petitioners to appear rn person ort ')).1O.2025 at 11:00 A.M. along rvilh the records. He stares that originall_y, petitioners u.,ere assigr-red the sr_rbjecr lar-rds in lrrrms of provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1.106 dated 25.O7.1958 and G.O.Ms.No.993 dated 13.10.1969 vide patta Certificate \to.Cl1629/1986 dated 03.06.1986; thar as pcr the assignment patta granted in favour of tl-re petitioners, the assignee ma,<es the land fit for cultivation r,r,ithin a peririd of three (li) _\ e€rrs as per condition No.2 of the assignment; th.rt as per the report submitted b_y the GpO, Edulapuram and the Mandal Girdhanar-I, Khammam Rural, the land assignecl to each petitioner t\.as not cultivated at an-v point of timc and that the erssignee or her legal heirs har.e r-ioiated the assignmen: patta condition No.2. To substantiate his contention, h: relied upon the order dated 0g.09.2010 passcd b1' this Co rrt in W.p.No.22437 of 2OlO. For betrer understanding, the operative portion of the satd order is extracted as l- ereu nder: - "After c:rrelu[1_r, considering the submissions of the Lear-nccL r-lonnsel for the petitioners ancl perusrnq rhe order of rcspondent No. 1, I am of the opinion that i\ hile no exceptton can be taken to respondent No- I holdirrg an cnqrriry, so long as the pattas granted in far.our ol the assigrLecs is not car-rcelled, thcii right of ",,ior,rn.rl, caxnot be interclicted. ln this Vier,r oI the ritattcr' i]re ,r.rp.,gar"d crder o[ respondent No 1' to tllc e\tcnl of respondcnt No 3 to take posscssion cannot be ;;a;"g sustain;d. However. respondent No i is entilleci to pr".".a t-,tt the enquiry and pass a hnal ordeL- after the hnal report of respondent No 2.. T'll I.".iJ..i"g ;;t;; -be It.r.i.'."a of the enjol'rnent of tl're prot)ert-\ it't clue stton' Accort,ngly. the order of respondenl No. 1' to the e\rcnt airp."=....ing the petitioners, is set aside The ,.r.titi#.... holv1.'cr, shall not changc the phl sical leatures of the tar-rds in question or alienate- or the same in aly martner till completion of rhe "r'r."*t". ."q"i.V and passing of hnal order b1' respondent No 1 oi u rtt-rnr ordei, thc petilioners cannot - Subject to the above direction' the \\rir Pctt:ton is ctisposecl of." Learned senior counsel further submits that though this 4. Court vide order dated 08'09'2010 in \'V P No 22437 cl 2O1O had set aside the order of respondent No- l ' to the extent of dispossessing the petitioners, but hor"ever' ilirected the petitioners not to change the physical features ol the lands in question or allenate or encumber the same ill anv manner ti1l completion of enquiry and passing ol linal order by respondent No.1; that till date i'e , even after a lapse of about fifteen (15) years, no enquiry has been conducted and no order has been passed by respondent No l/Joint Collector'

5. He further states that a similar case has come up for consideration in W.P.No'437 12 of 2017 ' *-hercin and u'hereunder the subject land thereir-r n'as assigned to the assignee in the year, 1975 and the oilicial respondents have .- issr,rcd thc rcsun'rption orders on 19. I2.2O16 r.c., after lor_rr one (4 1) ,i :.als, on the ground of i,iolation ol assrgnmer-rt conditions llerh.ing on the dccisions passed in B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collectorl ar.d .(inka Chendrayudu Vs. Joint Collector2, this Court r.ide order dated 03.Og.2025 in W P.No..13712 of 2017 held as under: In vierr-of the above findings, this writ petiLion is allorved by sertir.lg ilslde the impugned order passed by the No.4 in procecdings Ln No.B/802+/t6 dated lg.12.;Ot6 arrd also the conr;equential orders passed by the respondent No.3 anrl , r1r {ppral No.DJ7 t321JO17 darcd Oo.O; :O iZ ,,r,J Revisrorr Case No.tr2/1676/2017 dated 2r.17.2O)7 respc<:tii el.v :rnd the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acrluisition proceedings by following the procedure as conterll) ared uncler the Right to Fair CompensaUon and Trans-.:ar ency ii-r Lancl Acquisition, Rehatrtitation and Resetrie:rent Act. 2013 for payment of compensation io the pclitionc- lbr acquired land ald complete the sarne u,rth,n foLrr i-) nlonths from the date of receipt of copy. ol rhis ordcr ar-lcl. ii -rrc respondents ivant to i-n. rcmarning portion :f lar-ld rvhich was in possession of the petltioner, the\ are r.lirecred not to interferl r.irh the said lalci. wrthou t follor,r.ing, duc procedure. There shall be no orcler as to 6. Learnecl senior counsel further contends that the petitioners h: r,e already filed W.p.No .29456 of ,2025 alleging that respond(tnr No_3 r,vas trying to dispossess the petitiolters from the sub.iect property. w.ithout following due process of larr'. Vide ordt:r dated 25.Og.2O)5 in W.p.No.29456 of 2025, this Court had directed respondent No.3 to lbllolr, the due ".qrir" Co St S. ' t gss (ot aLt g: z ,;a) '2011(5) ALT 1i9 It ." ,/ u 5 na)tlCes proPe.ti procedure laid. d ou'n under 1au' before taking an\ acllon against the petltloners He states that the official respondents are again trying to drspossess the petltioners from thc subject 1n the pretext of issuing the impugned Thereiore, he seeks indulgence of this Couti l to pass approPriate orders' 7. Oppcsing the salne' lea-rned Assistant Government Pleader for Re-''enue contends that the petitioners u-ere grar-rted sufficient time to submit their explanaLion on the violation oi condition No'2 and that there is n'o pe rr crsitv in issr.ring the impugned notices; that insprte oi subrnitting the u-ritten expianattons, the petitioners ru'shed to this Courl' at premature stage' Therefore' he states that the present Writ Petition is misconceived and seeks to dismiss the Writ l Petition B. Having regard to the submissions of bolh Lhe learned counsel and upon perusal of the material availabie on record' this Court deems rt appropriate to direct the petitioners to lile rvrittenexplanationtotheimpugnednoticesdated t2.1O.2025 bcfore the concerned authoritl'- r'r ithin thirtr' (30) dal s from the date of receipt of the copv of tl-re order- Upon 6 filir-rg r-1et;ti',:d explanations, in terms of the or.clers passed b,r, this Court, the oflicial respondents are directed to examine the same ir L dctail Sranting sufficien t opportunitt of hearing to the llarties and pas: :. ppropriate reasoned order, inclusivel-i or-i the aspect of the inordinate clelay caused in issuing I hr- irnpu.nsd notices.

9. Wirl- t.;ee abo\/e direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costsj_ IL is made clear, respondent authorities are directed to tollon. the procedure contemplatecl under 1at., in the event ttrer intend to pass adverse orders agarnst the petrtloners Misceilaneous petitions pending, if an1,, shall stand clo se d To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-MOHD,ISMAIL PUry REGISTRAR D S CTION OFFICER 1 #EiJIf::'L;;:::tH Revneue Department, secretarjate, rhe State or 2. The District Cotlector, Khammam 3. The Joint Collector. Khammam 4 6

7. 8 PVL LS The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. The Tahasildar, Khammam Rural (M) Khammam District. One CC to SRt I\,4 V HANL to G P Fo R _."fl ::lil ff :,li:: r:J: I"'"?,,",,, n, ", 3,i,?., Two CD Cooiers {"P, HIGH COURT DATED:1 711012025 +il 1 "L BI C)), (I -) D -:", -r) ri:.-: ORDER WP.No.31707 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g0