Petition. vs Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Private)

4. B.Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Late Satti Reddy, aged bou.t 42 years, Occ. Agricufiure, Rl/o.- Plot No. 65, Sri Sai Krupa Nagar, Jillelaguda, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. B. Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Late Malla Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Plot No. 65, Sri Sai Krupa Nagar, Jillelaguda, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. B. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Late Malta Reddy, aged about 43 years, Occ. No. 65, Sri Sai Krupa Nagar, Jillelaguda, Balapur -Plot Agriculture. R/o. Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to 6 are Reddy vide notarized GPA dated 27 being rep. by 3rd petitioner B. Balwanth 10912025. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 3. Challa Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Not known, aged about 80 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H. No. 1-132, Jillelaguda village,'Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500097. 4. Challa Balamani, Wo Agriculture, R/o. H. No Reddy District - 500096 Late Bal Reddy, aged about 56 years, Occ. 1-129, Jillelaguda village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga :l r- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petition filed by the petitioners dated 29-09-2025 tor seeking restoration of PT tand in Sy. No. 138/D, 139 (old Sy. No. 120), admeasuring Ac.8-07 guntas situated at Jillelaguda village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, though the petitioners are having subsisting PT rights in respect of the above land and further though they were illegally dispossessed from the above PT land contrary to Section 32 of Act 1950, and further though the 2nd respondent is having jurisdiction to consider the said application, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry into the above Tenancy application filed by the petitioners and restore the possession of the above PT land by exercising jurisdiction U/Sec. 32(1 ) of Tenancy Act, 1950, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 issue interim order directing the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry and consider the petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec. 32 (1) of Telangana Area Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, dated 29logl2o25 for seeking restoration of PT land in Sy. No. 13B/D, 't39 (old Sy. No. 120), admeasuring Ac.8-07 guntas situated at Jillelaguda village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : --- The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL No. 1O of 2O2S 9RDER: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- '... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'd respondent in not considering the petition filed by the petitioners iated 2g-Og-2O25 for seeking restoration of PT iand in Sy.No.ISB/D, 139 (old Sy.No.12O),-admeasuring Ac.g_07 giintas situated at Jillelaguda. village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' though the petitioners are having subsifting Pf rights in respect of the above land and further thorfth they were illegally dispossessed from the above PT lanicontiary to Section 32 of Act 1950, and further though the 2'd respondent is having jurisdiction to consider the"said application, as illegal, unlawful, contrar5r direct the 2"a respondent. to to law and conduct enquiry inio the above Tenancy application frled by the petitibnJrs and restore the possession of the above Pf land by exercising jurisdiction u/Sec.32(1) of Tenancy Act, 1950, ,t d p""" other order or orders "'" "o,,"".q,,''tly "Lrth

2. Heard Mr.M.Damod,ar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and. Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.l and 2 are the sons of Late B.Yadi Reddy, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of Late B.Satti Reddy and petitioner Nos-S and 6 are the sons of Late B.Malla Reddy respectively; that they *.- .&*, & !-- \ \! -tcrtlli 2 ) were already declared as successors of original protected tenant Late Basigudem Bataiah vide proceedings No. Blg3t/2oo1 dated 28-07-2003; that being the legal heirs of the original protected tenanis, the petitioners are entitled for the recovery of possession of the PT land in Sy.No.138/D, 139 (old Sy.No. l2ol, admeasuring Ac.8-07 guntas situated at Jiltelaguda village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were claiming to have purchased the above PT land from the landlords contrary to Sections.38 and 38(d) of the Telangana Area Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950; that the petitioners were dispossessed from the subject lands without following the procedure contemptated under law; that the petitioners submitted an application dated 29.O9.2025 before respondent No.2 seeking to conduct enquiry with regard to the said land and pass order. But the said application is kept pending till date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as long as the PT rights are subsisting in respect of the PT land, the land lords are not permitted to alienate them to the third parties and any such alienation is null and void. f1 $.l: ..,-ffEh:; J substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Kotaiah and Another Vs. Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Private) Limite<lr and seeks to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue opposes the same.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the rights of the petitioners over the subject property would be decided by the competent civil Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioners are at liberty to work out the remedies as available under law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed 'lgsg ht& t-?sZ SD/-P.PONNA KRISHNA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI M DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of Tetangana. 2' Idalrl"tt 3. Two CD Copies PVL TKS / HIGH COURT DATED:101111202s \ \ o I lr D ER WP.No.33910 of 2O2S \ \HE$,,' 4, { (Jr- t ,.) -1- I I 1 EEc ilf * r'ATC * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS U \ I -:.i\.':,j! .1,