The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3

5. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat Building, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. The Sub-Registrar, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction, writ, more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in sub-dividing the Sy.No.60 into Sy.No.60/2 admeasuring Ac.0-26 guntas situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without any application/repiesentation from the Petitioner, without notice to the Petitioner and further action of the Respondents in including the land admeasuring Ac.0-26 guntas in Sy.No.60/2 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the prohibited properties list as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 And 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to delete Sy.No.60/2 and to continue the a Petitioner lancl as Sy.No.60 to an extent of Ac.0-26 cents by deleting from the list of prohibited p'repsrties under section 22-A of the Registration Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2A25

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 direct the Respondents to delete the Sy.No.6012 subject property from the prohibited properties list under section 22-A of the Registration Act, forthwith, pending dispo:;al of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT K.KIRAN MAYEE Gounselfor the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP, REP SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE The Court macle the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3341O of 2o25 DATEP : O2-L2-2o25 Between P.Prakash Rao. And ... Petitioner. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secret.ry, Revenue Department, BR Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and other$. ORDER . Respondents. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, speking the following relief : "... to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in sub-dividing the sy.No.6o into Sy.No.60/2 admeasuring Ac.o-26 gun(as situated at Lingqjiguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without any application/representation from the Petitioner, without notice to the Petitioner and further action of the Respondents in including the land admeasuring Ac.o-26 guntas in sy.No.6o/2 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the prohibited properties list as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 & 30O-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to delete Sy.No.60/2 and to continue the Petitioner land as Sy.No.6o to an extent of Ac.o-26 cents by deleting from the list of prohibited properties under section 22-A of the Registration Act...." Page 2 of6

2. Heard Mrs.K.Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearinll on behalf of Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muraliclhar Reddy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in unilaterally sub-dividing survey No.6O and creating survey No.6O/2 admeasuring Ac.O-26 guntas at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without any application, notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in subseque'ntly including the said land in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdicti,rn and violative of Articles 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the said land, having derived valid title through his father's purchase from the Salarjunll Estate Committee in 1954, which title and possession have been conclusively affirmed in multiple proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing; (Prohibition) Act, culminating in final findings in favour of the Petitione: and compliance thereof by the Mandal Revenue Officer by mutating; the Petitioner's name as pattadar and possessor pursuant to directions of this Hon'ble Court, the District Collector and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Despite the issue of title having attained finality and the entire extent of Survey No.60 being only Ac.O-26 guntas, the I t Page 3 of6 Respondents have, in utter disregard of binding judicial pronouncements and principles of natural justice, unlawfully altered the survey records and imposed a prohibition on registration, thereby preventing the Petitioner from exercising his lawful proprietary rights and causing grave prejudice, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court to prevent manifest injustice.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of'the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, opposing the present writ petition, submits that the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable, as the sub-division of survey No.60 and the consequential creation of Survey No.6O/2 were carried out in the ordinary course of statutory revenue administration for the purpose of proper identification, classilication and maintenance of land records and not on the basis of any application by the petitioner. It would be asserted that such administrative acts do not confer, extinguish or determine title and therefore do not violate Articles 2l or 3O0-A of the constitution. The inclusion of the subject land in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is justified as a precautionary measure taken in pubtic interest in view of discrepancies in survey and revenue records and the historical claim of the Government over the land and the same is subject to verification and correction in accordance with law. The respondents would further Page 4 of6 contend that revenue entries are only fiscal in nature, that mutation does not conclusively establish ownership and that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of represen[ation/appeal before the competent revenue authorities for rectification of records and deletion from the prohibited list. It would therefore be argued that the writ petition is premature, suffers from suppression of material facts relating to administrative necessity and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on a perusal of the rr.aterial placed on record, this Court linds that the title and possessir>n of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.O-26 guntas in survey No.60 of Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Fleddy District, have been the subject matter of prolonged litigation and have been adjudicated by competent fora, including under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, with findings recorded in favou:: of ihe petitioner. The said findings were acted upon by the revenue authorities, resulting in mutation of the petitioner'S name as pattadar and possessor. At the same time, the respondents contend that the impugned sub-division of the survey number and inclusion of the land in the prohibited properties list were undertaken as part of administrative and statutory functions and that such actions do not, by_ themsel'u'es, determine title. f f Page 5 of6 (a) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that while the respondents are empowered to maintain and update revenue records, any action having civil consequences, including sub- division of survey numbers and inclusion of land in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, must necessarily be preceded by due notice to the affected party, consideration of the relevant judicial pronouncements and passing of a reasoned order in accordance with law. The absence of such an exercise warrants interference to the limited extent of ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. e I (b) Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to examine the petitioner's grievance relating to the sub- division of Survey No.60 and the inclusion of the subject land in the prohibited properties list, in the light of the binding judgments relied upon by the petitioner, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 60 working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is completed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in lespect of the subject land Page 6 of6

6. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petit:on is disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs.

7. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secreterriat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Ma:ndal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Dis;trict Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6. One CC to SMT K.KIRAN MAYEE, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at I Hyderalrad IOUT] \

8. Two Ct) Copies \,y BSR a ,( a HIGH CCIURT DATEDi 10211212025 ORDER WP.No.33410 of 2025 L- ? I Jtl'l 206 Z. l- -zr DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION , WITHOUTCOSTS \