The High Court · 2025

SMT POLKAMPALLY BALAMMA. W/o. late PVeokanna, aged about 71 years Occ House l,4aker, Rro. Divitipaliy Village H/o. Yed ra Village, Mahabubnagar l\.4andal and District. MEKALA KRUHNAIAH, S/o late Krishnaiah, aged about 65 years, Occ Agril, R/o Divitipally Village, Ft/o. Yedira Village l\,4ahabubnagar N4andal and District. SMT.J.BALAMMA., W/o. ale J.Chennaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ Agril, Ryo. Divitipa ly ll/o Yedira Village. lMahabubnagar Mandal and District. GOLLA SRINIVASULu,, S/o. late G.Yuskalaiah, aged about 39 years. Occ Agr l, R/o. DrvrtrpJtly V llage, H/o. Yedira V llage. l\,4ahabuhnagar N,/andal and Diskict. ANUPA CHENA KISTAIAH,, S/o. late Pochana, aged about 58 years. Occ Ag.il. R/o. Divilipally Village. H/o Yedira Village. Nlahabubnagar l\landal and District. POLEI\,4ONl ANJANEYULU,, S/o. late Polemoni Balaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ Agril, R/o. Divltipally Village, H/o. Yedira Village, N.4ahabubnagar Mandai and District R KRISIINAIAH,, S/o. late Golla Naganna, aged about 38 years, Occ Agil, R/o. Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedira Vrllage, llahabuhnagar l\,4andal and Diskict. GOLLA ANJANEYULU , S/o late GolJa Hanmaiah. aged about 38 years. Occ Agril, R/o Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedira Viliage, Mahabubnagar l\landal and District. TELUGU BOGI GALANNA,. S/o late T.BogioRamulu, aged about 45 years, Occ Agri , R/o. Divitipally Village H/o Yedira Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. GOLLA CHENNAIAH,, S/o G Hanrnarali Aged about 50 years, Occ Agril Ryo. Divitipally Village, H/o Yedira Village, l\.4ahabubnagar Mandal and oistrict. GOLLA LINGAMAIAH, S/0. Savanna, Aged about 45 years, Occ Agril. R/o. D vitipal y Village, H/o. Yedrra Vi lage, lVahabubnagar l\,landal and Distflct. GOLLA BUCHANNA, S,/o.Sayanna Aged about 36 years, Occ Agrll, R/o Divitipally Village, Hio. Yedira Vlllage, l\y'ahabubnagar N,4andal and Drstrict. BADRA NAlK,, S/o.Bala Naik Aged about 53 years, Occ Agril Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedrra Vrllage, l\,4ahabubnagar Mandal and District. H.BALAJI, S/o. Kasbnoflr. Aged about 68 years,Occ Agnl. R/o. Divitipaly VrllagtHio Yedrra Village, lvlahabubnagar N4andal and Drstrict. GOLLA BALAIAH,. S/o. Late Go lalah Aged about 53 years. Occ Agri . Rio. Divitipaliy Vil age, Hio. Yed ra Vr!lage, lvlahabubnagar Mandal and D strict. PADALA CHENNAIAH . S/o Bheemarah. Aged about 54years. Occ Agrll. Ryo. DrvrhpaLy V llage, H/o. Yedira Vi lage. l\,4ahabubnagar lr4andal and Drstflct. GOLLA JANGAIAH., S/o l\,'lasaiah Aged about 65 years, Occ Ag.il, Ryo. D vitipal y V llage. H,'0. Yedira Village l\,4ahabubnagar l\,4anCal and D strict. R.NARASIMULU.. S/o Hanmanthu. Aged about 63 yea.s, Occ Agril R/o. Drvrtlpally Viliage. H/o. Yed ra Village, N.4ahabubnagar Mandal and Dislrict. AKULA SHANKAR, S/o Late Golla Kflshnarah Akula Krishnaiah Aged about 3'1 Years, Occ Agril, Divitipally Village. H/o. Yedira Village. N.4ahabubnagar Mandal and District. |\,4EKALA ANJANEYULU . S/o. Hussaianaiah. Aged about 58 years Occ Agril. H/o. Yedira Village, Mahabubnagar N,4andal and District. Sl\4T. R. VENKATAMMA,, W/o. late R.Hanumanthu, Aged about 78 years. Occ House maker, Ryo. Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedira Village, lvahabubnagar Mandal and Diskict. smt. D YADAIM[,4A., W/o late Darshnam Rangaiah, Aged about 65 years. Occ House maker, Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedira Village, N4abalmbnagar Mandal and Diskict. H.RANJl,, S/o. Kasabnonji, Aged about 63 Years.Occ Agril. Fyo. Divitipally Village, H/o. Yedira Village, Ny'ahabubnagar tMandal and District. R. ANJANEYULU, S/o late R Hanumanthu. Aged about 49 years. occ Agril. Rlo. Davitipally Village H/o Yed ra Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and D strict. 25 R.SANJANNA. Si) late Naganna Aged about 46 years, Occ Ag- ti,c Dvipa y Village H/o.Yedira Villirge. Nlahabubnagar Mandal and District. PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE O: TELANGANA Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Goverr -ert, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad 2. The District Co lect.r, Nlahabubnagar, MAHABUBNAGAR Dist.ict 3. THE REVENUI: DIV SIONAL OFFICER,, l\.4ahabubnagar l\,4ahabubnaga, I -.tr ct 4. THE TAHASILI)AR. Llahabubnagar Proper, N,4ahabubnagar RESPONDENTS I I Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia p-ayrng that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the H gh court may be pleased to issue iln appropriate writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of V/rlt of Mandamus, directing the responrlenjs to pay the compensation on par with the patty land owners by declarinr: rhe action of the respondents in resuming the petitroners lands in sy.Nos. 417,t.25,423 and 372 0f Divitipally Village ll/o Edira Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal an,l D strict by orders in file No. Br251 .)7r2010 dated 2211212010 herein as illegai ,/oid, voirative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles i4 .\nd 300-A of the Constitution of lnd ia. a |.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 45979 O F 2017\ 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 suspend the resumption orders it file No. 8/2519712010 daled 2211212010 passed by the respondents herein pending the final disposal of the main W.P.No. 36732 of 2017. l.A.NO:2 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 4598 1 0F 20171 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents herein not to alter the nature of the petitioners schedule property, pending the final disposal of the main W P. No.36732 of 2017 Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI J.SURESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents : SRI MOHD HABEEBUDDIN, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER i:. r;. i. r. : I r" : ; : ,- ( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.36732 of 2OL',t ORDER: Heard Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned cour: sel for the petitioners arrd Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddirr, learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignmenr aitpearing for the respondents and perused the rrratcrial : r: r.ecord.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners sLtl.lr-its that the respondents have assigned the land admca suring to an extent tf Ac.2.OO gts and more each to thc oe.,itioreers in various survey numbers situated at Divitipall. Village FIlo.Edira Viilage, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District and they are in continuous and uninterrupted r, r5;5s5s16n of the agrir:ultural larrds for ali these yea_rs and they have not alienal.ed the said lands nor violated anr, ::la.uses of assignment nor kept the lands fa1lolr, since ._-tr:: date of assignmen[. While it being so, the respondent N,t.4 has issued Fc,rm-l notices to the petitioners rn F,i1e No.B/2519712010 dated 17.09.2010 stating :hat they have alienzrted the assigned lands to the thircj r)arties in 1 2 w.p.N".soz32 or z_s#'l S contravention of the provlsions of Sub_Section (2) of ection 3 of the Telangara Assignea La,ds (prohibition of Transfers) Act, l97Z and sought for expianation as to show cause why the lands stiould not be resumed by the Government. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondent No.4 and explained orally stating that they have not violated any assignment rules and submitted their pattadar passbooks and patranies showing that they are cuitivating the jands by raising loans from the Nationalized B:.rnks 3. Learned Counsel for the pctitioners further submits that when the respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lancls for the purpose of construction of Government buildings i.e., District Jail, Medical College and double bedroom houses, they filed W.P.No.249g2 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 08.08.20 i6 directing the respondents to furnish the coples of resumption orders to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has served the impugned '5 3 SK,J < 35732 of 2Ol7 resumption orders in File No.B/2:i LgT l2OlO dated 22.12.2010 in exercise of powers rr:sr_ed vide G.O.Ms.No.1562 Revenue Department dated . i3.09.i963 stating that the petitioners have not brough r r he lands under cultivation er.en after a lapse of moro thiln three years ald even alter receipt of the notice also tLLey have not come iorr.n ard with request to grant time i rr. cringing the assigned lands under cultivation. He furthr.: submits that the said resumption orders were not se l.,.cc. on the petitioners and thelr are antedated and mar:i.tulated to avoid payment of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners furth,.:r. :submits that if the respondents want to acqurre the lirrrrls of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled lor 1>a\,rnent of compensation of market value on par uriti absolute owners as held by the larger Bench of this Cou -t io Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Reuenue Diuisional Olficer u, Mekala Pa.ndut . The respondents cannot :r,:qtrire the lands of th,: petitioners without initiating land a r:q.risition r 2oo4 (2) ALD 451

9. 4 S1(,J w.P.No.36732 oI 2017 proceedings and without making payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiied on the 5. Judgment of a larger Bench of this Court in Land' Acquisition OfficetCum'Reaenue Diuisional Officer u' Mekala Pandu (Supra- 7) and also the Judgments passed by this Court in B.Adinaragano Murthg tt' Collectorp and Jinka Chendragudu u. Joint Collectors and submits that the petitioners are entitled for compensation on par with the private lands and requested to a-11ow the writ petition.

6. Learned Assistant Governme nt Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter submits that during the year, 2010, the then Tahsiidar , Mahabubnagar having noticed that the total extent of leind so assigned was lallow and has never been put to agriculture use since the date of assignment has issued notices to aI1 the assignees or their legal heirs on 1,7'09'2010' As the 2 1999 (6) ALT 322 (S.B.l 3 2011 {5) ALT 119 5 SK,J W.P.L') .l ;:32 of 2017 assignees o r their 1ega1 heirs have not subn:: t.ted any explanation. the impugned resumption orcle rs were issued resumir-tg total extent of land Ac.1I6.,22 gts in Sy.No.417, .A,c.55.11 gts in Sy.No.423, Ac.20.:3,5 gts in Sy.No.425 e.nd Ac.23.00 gts in Sy.No.372 vrilhin the limits of Yedira Village of Mahabubnagar Urban l,landal. He submits that against the order passecl b.z the Tahsildar, altpeal lies to the Revenue Divisiona. Officer, Mahabubnagar ald the petitioners without availing the a-ffective a-lternative remedy of appeal have filed :his writ petition. 7 . Learned Assistant Government plead,:r for Assignment fur.ther submits that as on the c ate of resumption of 1and, no traces of having ci: n e any agriculture ',r.ere noticed. On r.esumption of lands in the year, 2O1O, the land admeasuring to an e).r,!-nt of Ac.50.OO gts u,as handed over for constructior-i of new buildings for the Government Medical Coll:ge. on 04.O2.2016, r\c.51.18 gts out of Sy.Nos.423 and z.2t5 was t 6 S I(,.I W.}']. No.36732 0I2017 : handed over to the Housing Department on 1 8 .08 .2 0 1 6 for construction of Double Bedroom Houses for the benefit of houseless poor persons and the Housing Department has constructed 87 I houses and the Government Medical College has also started construction. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment further submits that the request of the petitioner for payment of land compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitron, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity "RFCTLARR Act, 2013") cannot be considered as the land u,'a s not re sumed for public purpose from the petitioners / assignees by the respondent No.4 under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Further, they were not in possession of the lands as on the date of initiation of proceedings for resumption. The compensation shall be paid when the I S IT,J W.l'.'.1 ..:b73 ) ot 2Ol7 land is resunted for public purpose uncler th,,. ;:,r,l,isions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and when the assignee:l are in enjoyment of the land. In the instant case, th<r land was not in the, custody of the petitioners and i vras not resumed fcr public purpose from the petiti,.I1e1s. 4. such, the cuestion of payment of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 20 13 does not arise, hence, re:,1r_Lested to dismiss the. r,r,rit petition.

9. Alter hr.aring both sides and perusing thr.. .laterial on record, this Court is of the considered vieu, lhztt there is no dispu[e \\,ith regard to the assignment of .rurci to the petitioners b,v the respondent authorr i cs The impugned proceedings vicle File No.B/25 )(.f,? /2OlO dated 22.Ita.2O10 issued by the respondent No.,: a.nd the resumption of the subject lands from the petitio.t,.:r.s is on the ground that the petitioners have failed to uring the land into crrltivation within three years from .:lre ,f ate of assignment and as the requirement of the land is for the public purpre5s, the Government is resorting r, r resume 8 SK,J w.P.No.36732 o12017 the same without paying any compensation. In the impugned notices, the respondents have stated that the assignees have alienated the assigned lands to the third parties in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Whereas in the impugned resumption orders, the respondent No.4 has stated that the assignees have not brought the lands under cultivation and moreover on issue of notice also, the assignees have not even come forward with a request to grant time for bringing the lands under cultivation and they have violated the condition of grant specified in para Vl(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958.

10. The respondents in their counter have contended that the lands were taken from the petitioners for public purpose as they have not in possession of the property. In violation of conditions of assignment by the petitioners, they resumed the lands. Thereafter, they 9 S I(,J W.P.li r i :712 o1 2017 want to us(l the lands for pubiic purpose. T): r: ground stated in the impugned notices is contrary to r_lLe 1;round stated by the respondent No.4 in the i.npugned proceedings. It clearly shows that the responcL,.nts have taken contra stand in the impugned notices ;rnd the impugned orders. The respondent authorities ,.r,ant to use the lald of the petitioners for public plrrpcse to construct clouble bed room houses and Go,.t:rnment Medical College as per the ar.erments in the cor-rr:te-. The respond.ents want to acquire the lald from the o:,1 itioners without pay.ng ar-ry land acquisition compensali. r.r. 1 1 . The re spondents in para 1 O of the cou:- I ,:rr have stated that the notices in Form-I were issued b1. thr: then Tahsiidar, \{airabubnagar assuming that the iLssignees have transl'erred the land in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 3 ol ,\ssigned Lands (Prohibilion ofTransfer) Act, 1977. Upon rhorough enquiry, it was construed that only few of the assignees have sold th e land to others and some other grr I r t jon ers 10 SK,J W.P. No.36732 oi 2017 have concealed the fact of selling the land to third parties and some of the assignees, who hled petitions, have admitted that the land was not suitable for cultivation. The said contention of the respondents is very vague as the respondents have issued the impugned order to all the petitioners with the same reason. In the counter, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have not submitted any explanation to the notice issued by the then Tahsildar. N or,r, on the other hand they have stated that some of the petitioners have concea.led the fact of selling the land to the third parties and the land was not cultivable. It clearly shows that the respondents have taken contrary stand in their counter and they cannot improve their case by hling counter as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Mohindhr Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhia wherein it was held at para No.S as under; The second equall_v relevant matter ts that when a statutor-v functionarv m.tkcs an ordcr bascd on ce atn Brounds. rts ralrlit) must be Judged bv the reasons so mentioncd and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affrdavit or otherwise. Otheru,ise, ,r, oid". bad in the r (1c73) r scc .ro5 1l SK,.,I W.L .\ t .\t732 ol 2Ol7 beginning mal , b) the time it comes to court on account of rL ,.lrallenge, get validated bv ildditional grounds later brought out. We 1,r here drau' attclrtion to tlre observatLons of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bharr, : Public orders. pubLicly made, in exercise of a statutory a.u..:,rritr cannot be constn ed tn the Iight of cxplanations subsequentl]' give:r 1.. the officer making th: or'ler of l'hat he meant, or of *hat u'as in hrs m ld. ()r \\hat he inter'rded r l, d.). Pu blic or-ders macle by public authorities ar. r: ant to haYe public effcct and are intcnded to effect the actings and con:.r,rt of those to \rhom the. arL) addressed and must be construed objectivel\ .r -L reference to the lanlua!e used in the ordcr itself Orders ar.. no: like old $ine becoming better as they gro\r ol(i( f

12. The Judgment relied by the learned corlr rsel for the petitioner tn Land Acqutsition Officer-Cu;n-Reoenue Diuisional Officer u. Mekala Pandu (Supra-1,1 {iquarely apply to the instant case and the relevant por t-ion of the said Judgrnent is as lollows: "111. Ir the circumstances, we hold that the assignt.r,s cf the gol'ernment lands are entitled to payment oI co:rl reiriation eqLlivale-rt tLr thc full market value of the land and other l) ,-'r,r[:ts on par \aitL full ouners of the land even in cases rvhere th: assigned Iands are t:rken possession of by the State in accordanc. \',rth the terms o- gritnl or parta, though such resumption is ioi a 1>r-rbLic purpose Wc further hold that even in cases rvhere the Star ( (iJes not in\oke the covenant of the giant or patta to resume the la: ri lirr snch public 1 ur;.,ose and resorts to acqrtisition of the land r ir(l(r lhc provisio:rs cI thc Lancl Acquisition Act, I894, the assignc,)i ]hail be entitlcd to ':ompensation as owners of the land and lc,- ,rll other conscquerltr,li bcnclits under the provisions ol the Land ,,\'-. usrLrolr Act. 18!,4. \o condition incorporated in patta/deed oI;,rstgrLment shall operare as a clog putting any rcstriction on the r.S r of the assig:rcr to ,ilarnl full compensation as owrrer ol the land.' 12 SK,J w.P.No.36732 oI 20I 7

13. The Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in B.Adinaragano Murthg a. Collector (Supra-2) squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption "18. of assigned lands cannot be extended L'eyond a reasonable period, in arly event, not Iater than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessarl inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a declsion to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the Parties concerned. Secrion 4(1)(b) of the Act envisages thaL cven if therc is violation of certain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heirs as the case ma5' be and if there is a violation of the tenns of assignmcnt for the second time, it would bc open to the authorities to resume the lands l have, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents have no authority to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 vears on some flimsy grounds. The first question is answered accordingly'"

14. The Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Jinka Chendragudu u. Joint Collector (Supro.-S) squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that the land in "11. question was assigned to him in the year 1976, and if according to respondent No.3, the land, as per the conditions of D-Form patta, was required to bring the land under cuitivation within three years t: : t '* t, i.;r i: t: i 13 SK'J w.P ,i ll6 /32 oI20I7 show cause as from the Cate of its issuance, and if the petitioner failed to l)ring the land uncler cultivation, wlthin tluee years from the da :i of its issuance. then respondcnt No.3, ought to have issued nol- c. :alling upon hirn D-Form l)att.1 should not be cancelled, immediateiy altcr : xltir1' of lhe date of three '/ear's frorn D-Form l)atta, ard instead of doing that, he has issued ilrr: shorv cause notice on 17.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of nearl1,30,\car.j. iJe further slrbmitted that since respondent No.3 issued the shir'.\ cause notice after lapse of nearly 30 years, it will not be po:,sible to ascertain as to whether the land was brought under Cult:vation $,ithin th.ee vears from the date of issuance of D-Form patta r)r not. issuance r I \\ tr

12. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumari v. Dist, (:cllector, Visakhaparnam and Madamaneni Chinnaswarny (died) pel. t,Fls. v. Joint Collector. Chittoor, held that power to cancel the D-Fcrrn gatta or resume the land, by the revenue authorities must be ,:xercised within a reasonable time and that ii D-Form patta ,.\.rs to be cancelled, the grounds on r,vhich it is sought to be cancelle(l lrave to stated, tc enable the assignee to show cause. In the instan: oErse, the D-Form latta was cancelled after lapse of 30 years, anC h. show cause nc,tice rssued in that regard, drd not specify the g.-ound on whrch the DKT,,r,as to be cancelled, and in fact, it is very . ear from the proc,redjngs as .,ve11 as the record produced, the s:( ,\ cause notice. u'hich 1ed to passing of cancellatron of D-I.'orm pal. .r granted in lavour of the petitioner, is at the instance of responderl Nos. 4 and 5. Merel)' because respondent Nos.4 and 5 harr: l,:cn jn possession of the lancL in question since several 1ears. it is r'.(-:t open for them to seek cancellation of patta granted to some oth( r person and seek assi.gnment ol the same in their favour."

15. In the instant case, the respondents ha\,e assigned lands to t.re petitioners during the year, 196 1 to i99 1 The respc,ndents have issued the present in.,pugned t 14 SK.J W. P.No.36732 oI 2017 orders on the ground of violation of assignment conditions after 50 years. The findings of the above Judgments squarely apply to the instant case as this Court categorically held that after lapse of several years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds. If the respondents want to use the land for the public purpose, they have to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay the compensation as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Reuenue Diuisional Officer o. Mekala Pandu (Supra- 1).

16. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondents in File No.Bl251.97 l2OlO dated 22.12.2OIO is liab1e to be set aside.

1.7. In view of the above findings, this Writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings in File No.B/2519712O1O dated 22.72.2070 issued to each petitioners. As the respondents have acquired the lands of the petitioners, they have to initiate land acquisition t ( 15 SK,J W.P .i :l6 732 oI2017 proceedings under the Right to Fair Compens;ation and Transparencf in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitat-icn ald Resettlement Act, 20 13 for payment of compensretion to the petitioners for their respective assigned lerr:Lds and conclude the same within four (4) months frorr-r the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall te no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending r;hal1 stand ciosed \ \ That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' wiin"." the Hon'bl;1;; Chief Justice APARESH KUMAR slt'lGH' on this Thursday, tne f*en1y First aay ot August' Two Thousand and Twenty five' //TRUE COPY// SDi.K.BHAVANI SWAMY SIPIANT REGISTRAR ..,SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Princit'al Secretary to Government, Revenue De anrnent, Secretariat Buildlng s, -[ank Bund Road, State Of Telangana at H yderabad The Districi Collector, Mahabubnag aT, MAHABUBNAGAFI District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ma habubnagar Mahabuf'nagar Dlstrict. The Tahasildar, Mahabubnag ar Proper, lt/lahabubnagar Two CCs t,: GP FOR REVEN UE, High Co urt for the Sta tr: of Telangana at Hvderabac. [OUT] 2 3 4 5 6. oi,;-bti; dRl J.SURESH BABU, Advocate IoPUC] 7. Two CD C,:Pies SA GJPN B -'---:--. .: li i,1 -.-:i 2 Ir SEP 2025 \l : \: HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER WP.No.36732 of 2017 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (l,