The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR I IEVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.397O8 of 202s Date:24.12.2025 Between Erla Sayanna AND petltloner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is being . disposed of with the consent of both the learned counscl for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents at thc admission .\ P.\ (' -t9t0S o1202-i E\.J EVV,] 2

2. This Writ Petition is hled to leclare the impugned proceedings dated 3O-09-2024 isst r d by the f,*r respondent District Collector, Nirmal , istrict, in proceedings No.E2 18O512024, as illegal and rL bitrarv zrnd consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to i to correct the revenue records in the Dharnai web porte I in respect of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.S.O I gts in Sy. No.227 l8 of Aloor village, Sarangapur Man [al, Nirmal Distric't b_l i) Changing the land nature fro n assigned patta land to patta land; ii) Deleting the pOT ( ase status; iii) Changing transaction status from assig:r:ci land to patta land; iv) De notifying the land from the prohibitory list and v) Updating all revenue record s including pahanies, IB, ROR and portal data accordingll .

3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Red: r, learned counsel for the petitioner and' Sri L. Ravincl ,r, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ap >earing for the respondents. Perused the material ar rilable on record _) EVV,J W.l).No.-19708 ol 2{)25 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the said land from one Smt. Thota Yerra Bhai through a Sada Bainama dated 13-O7-2022. Smt. Yerra Bhai is the wife of late Jyothi Sipayi who was the original assignee of the subject land under the ex-servicemen quota as evidenced by the Final Patta Certificate dated 14-02-1975 as her husband was an army employee bearing No.5632302. He would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30-04 1963 and G.O.Ms.No.11l7 dated 11-11 1993, the allottee is entitled to freely alienate the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment even r,r,ithout any permission from the Government. This legal position is categorically upheld by this Court in BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Society v. State of Telanganal, wherein, this Court held that ex-servicemen assigned lands are freely alienable and cannot be treated as prohibited or non-alienable lands. In para Nos.69 to 73, it was held as under: 2O2 r (3) ALT 146 {D.8.) 4 IvVJ n P No 19703 ()t 102-. X " 69. Iiven otherwise, if there is an assign r of land to a person, who is an ex-servicemen, an<l h a lanrllcss poor person entttled for assignment, c\e bv sornr: cr ror, the said assignment was made qu I G.O.Ms.No 1,106 Revenue dt.25.07. 1958 an<l rnentroninll Ci. O. Ms.No.743 dt.30.04. 1963 G O Ms No lllT dt. 11.11.1993, we are o[ the ot)l that thc :lsslgnccs, rvho are admittedly ex scrvic( l are still cntrtlcd to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No L dt. I 1. i i. M93 despite the existence of any conditi(,r the Deerl of Assignment prohibiting alienation. :nt :is 'lot iCn )7 L11

70. Srmrlar vie$, has been taken by the Arr 1 f'radcsl] I lrglr Cour t in A\<le Narasimhq R(]o u. S1(.l Andltrct l\rttlcslt l7l 2013 (3) AI.T 500, and by ttrc I Court al rrk:rabad for the State of Telangana an( State ol n n(lhra Pradesh in ThatisettA Kusuma Kur; cutd ( lt('t.s u. Sub-Registrar, AnanrdaJ.lLr Vrsekll(r p( tl nont Distict atul others (8) AIR 20 l7 r 713. 7l- ln Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra), an sen'icerre rr rr,as granted assignment of land b), the iil \\rthoLrt nrcntrorling G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04. 1963. ' assillllrlcnr <lt:ecl also contained a condition prohib 1 translirr ol propert-v while permitting enjoyment ol same ltv l n hcritance. Ira QN Dl, ,P. )x- thc Andhra Pradesh High Court held t Lat despitc cxrslclrcc of the said condition, the petition' rs still cu{rllt:rl to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No I 17 dt. 11.11.1(193 and hc lvas cntitled to sell awav he assigned land after ten years from the datr of assigrl nr cn t . It heid that such land cannot be included rn he prohibitorr rr:gister and the registering authorrl es ) EVV..I w.P.No.197(18 of2025 cannot refuse to register the deed transferring the same. ln that case also, like in the instant case, the Darkhast lile (i.e., the Record of Assignment) was missing, and the Court hcld that the missing of the file cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner.

72. ln ThatisettV Kusumo Kumari l8 supra), the husband of the petitioner was admittedly an ex servicemen and he had been assigned land during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioner and his chil(lren wanted to alienate the saicl land, but the Sub Registrar refuscd to register it on the ground that rt was inclucled in the list of prohibited properties communicated under Sectror] 22A o[ the Registr-ation Act, 1908 by the District Collector to him. There rvas also an order passed by the Drstrict Collector refusing to delete the said land from the prohibitory list. The High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the Statc of Andhra Pradesh (one of us, i.e., MSR,J had rendered the said decrsion) held that lrrstlv only the State Government under Section 224(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 can de notif), either in full or part any property which has been notified under sub-section (l) (a) of Sectior.r 22A-, and the District Collector has no such .;urisdictron to pass any order refusrng to delete the said land from the Prohrbitory Register. Though there was a condition prohibitrng ahenation in the Deed of Assignment granted to the petitioner's husband, thrs Court held that since there is no dispute that he was an ex-servicemer.r, he was entitled to assignment as per G.O,Ms.No.743 dt.3O.O4.1963 and G.O.Ms. No.1 I 17 dt. 11.1 1.1993 and i 6 EVV, W.l, No t,)708 o{ 2025 ' \ t i / i i ) I ] the condition in the Deer ari e nation can not overrider ;: j"::T::", "I:":- It also held that instead of assigning the lar j to the huslrancl of pctitioner under G.O i,l;.No.743 dt. t0 64 1q1r.1, rvhirlr cnritled ex sen,i,.,.r ten to assignnrcltt of lancl, rvithot application of rr: nd, the ,istr rcr co,ecto. tr.a u"' G o Ms No r r42 Revenue:1'"1,j::,'::], ;':T; applicirtrle in Anclhra Area. It held that for tht nistake done b_r' the rcspondents in assigning lanri t r an r:x servi(.crncn b-y quotrng the wrong G.O., Iri; family canllut i). madc lo sufler: and lhat the a,," canll()t rhscr.ir inate l)ctu ","o :cen cx-servicc,,rcI w,o obtaincrr assignmc,t dr 30 o.l re63 .rrrr ,n."" *;: :"." l"l,,lli, ",ll,i quotinft G. O. Ms. No. I I 42 Rcve.uc De,t tmcrrt dt. lg.06.r9s4. It held that - serwicemen fo rr parl or the sarne crass and ,,,"a,' tuo''o be no ilrt] igible differcrtia to drslirrguish on.t trom r,e orher categon. "". ;"::-rT;:;.,,;": T:, violativc of Articie l4 of the Constitution of lndier rf therc rverc to l)c such clrscrimt natron.

73. We rcspcctfrrlll approve the decjsrL Ande Nttrttsi|lth.l Rao (7 supr:r) and Thatisettg Kl Kuntai (t3 supra) atrd follou, the same and holt even il thcre is a clausc proltibiting alienation r deeds ol assignment issucd to.the ex_se.rricem,,,, 1\'llom tllr. pctttroncr.s predccessors_in.title pur, l thc sub.jccf lancl, such a cl, C].O.lVIs. No. 743 Re'crrue r.r::;;':,.;:oooT: G.O.Ms. No.l 117 Revenue Department dt.1l.1l I arrd su, lr assigncc / ex-sorvrcemen / their fa tnpmbers r ;lr .rli(,narc the q55lgns6 land aJter ten \ lr,rp 11.r" rlate of assignmcnt without seeking Pcrmissiorr from the State Government- r s ll-t l: uma l thc 'om ri sed , Ver ! 13, r ii,y :TS €'ry - 't I VV.I W P.No.1971)8 of 2025

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the son of original assignee viz., Thota Sanjeev Kumar has filed a suit in O.S.No.2O of 2022 against the petitioner herein seeking declaration of title and rectification of revenue entries, however, subsequently they have entered into a compromise in Lok Adalat and an award was also passed to that effect on l2-O3-2O22, r,t,herein, Sanjeev Kumar has acknorvledged that he has no right, title or interest in the subject land and relinquished a-ll claims in favour of the petitioner. 6 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has made several representations before the respondents seeking the correction of revenue entries but the respondents have mechanically directed the petitioner to make his request through the Dharani online portal. Fina1ly, the petitioner has submitted an application ',,ide Transaction ID 03t003000005380 dated 12-11-2023. Further, the petitioner has a-lso filed W.P.No.4820 of 2024, and this Court disposed of the said IUVI n P No.l9-0it ol 1025 t Writ Petition by directing the respondent a r Lthorities to consider the application of the petitioner. Ir spite of all these efforts, the respondents have no- responded positively ancl linallv issucd impugned procct Cings dated 3O-O9-2O24 in E2/8O5 12O24 rejecting the rr: luest of the petitioner holding that the subject lanrl is purely govemment land. Aggrieved by the same, .he present Writ Petition is liled

7. C)n the other hand, learnerl Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, while oJ posing the same, would submit that; firstly, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3.,1 respondent ar: completely in accordance rvith law and that the pattz certificate issued in favour of thc vendor of the petitiorr :r does not demonstrate that the Final Patta Certihcate vas issued under cx-ser-vicemen category; sccondly, the, r ame of the vendor of the petitioncr was not shown in t te revenue records after 2O15-2016; thirdly, the said ianc a-llotted to the vendor of the petitioner is an assignecl end and a patta relating to the said land r'r,as issued for t re landless 9 EVV,J W. P.No.39708 of2025 poor people, and lastly, unless the petitioner comes with valid sale deed, the question of entering the name of the petitioner does not arise arrd accordingly the 3'd respondent has rightly issued the impugned proceedings directing the authorities concerned to keep the subject land in the prohibitory list under the Prohibition of Transfers Rules, 1977 and therefore there is no infirmity attributed to the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that; firstly, the patta has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner vide final patta certihcate dated l4-O2-I975. This is an admitted fact that the patta has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner and based upon the requisition made by the then Captain Records Ofhcer, ASC records (Supply) Bangalore, to the then District Collector, Adilabad, in the year 1974 for allotment of land to the widow of late Sri Jyothi Sepai/cook who was L- --- l I \ l0 EVV,J V P.No.19708 ot2025 enrolled in Army service corps and died on ( 6-08-1973 while in service and this aspect is not disp.: -ed by the petitioner as well as third parties; secondly, il is also an admitted fact that the name of the deceased Sipayi has been entered in the revenue records in 2016; hirdly, the name of the petitioner has also been recol'r .ed in the revenue records in 2018 arrd it is not dispult d that the name of the petitioner has been recorded in I te revenue records without there being any enquiry and fc -rrthly, the impugned proceedings have arisen out of the o der of this Court in W.P.No.4820 of 2025 wherein this Court has categorically directed the authorities to do th: necessar5r action as per existing rules arrd keeping in min I the order of this Court from time to time

9. Further, based upon the rep rrt dated 1,9-08-2024 issued by the sth responderl the 3'a respondent had admitted in his proceedin;3 ; that an award has also been passed in respect of th: disputes arose between the petitioner and Sanjeev Kuu ar i.e. the successor of the original vendor in O.S.No.2O <t 2022 and ) l1 EVV,J W.P-No.39708 of 2025 it was compromised in Lok Adalath in Case No.21 of 2022 in O.S.No.2O of 2022 dated 12-O3-2022, wherein the matter was amicably settled

10. Having considered all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities ought to have verified the sada sale deed (Sadabainama) dated L3-O7-2002 before issuing the impugned proceedings and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the 3'a respondent has put the subject land in the prohibitory list with non-application of mind. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders were passed without following the orders passed in W.P.No.482O of

11. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 3O-O9-2O24 issued by the 3.d respondent and remand the matter back to the said authority to re-examine the case of the petitioner for fresh i I consideration with regard to the validity of the sada simple sale deed (sadabainama) dated l3-O7 -2OO2, executed by I t Yerra Bhai in favour of the petitioner, inconl cnance with the Lok Adalath award granted in favour of t re petitioner in Case No.2l of 2022 in O.S.No.2O of 2022 dated l2-O3-2O22 on the file of the learned PrincipzLJ Junior Civil Judge, by grarting sufficient opportunity to r re petitioner and to the vendor of the petitioner arrd tak i appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. Ther: shall be no order as to costs

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is lisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

13. As a sequel, tl're miscellaneot s petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' sD/- c. \rerur ne DEEPIKA Gts AsQll StsCNON OFFICER To,

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreta -i rt, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telang tna State, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Nirmal District.

5. b.

7. \ The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal ll strict. The Tahsildar, Sarangapur Mandal, Nirmal District. One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate I( PUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the 5i tte of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR ri.. i . .,.,.r:: d*ro HIGH COURT DATED: 2411212025 ORDER WP.No.39708 of 2025 1i1 :_'--::-\ a:\ .h\ 21 Jq{2026 'i\ a'-t\ ,:-, li '',i,! o o * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1t 2pIrlu