Allowed

Dakoji Yadagiri v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/5569/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by successors of an assignee of government land. Relying on a prior order, the court held that the assigned land was not prohibited. It directed the State to remove the lorch from the prohibited list and the Sub-Registrar to process registration documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed. Directing respondents to delete the land from prohibited list and Sub-Registrar to register documents.

Dakoji Yadagiri Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3256 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos: 5569 AND 5587 0F 2019

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5569 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dakoji Y_adagiri, S/o Narsimha or lvlangal Narsaiah, aged about 91 yrs, Occ - Nil Rl/o Choutuppal Village and Mandat Bhongiri District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Bhonagiri District

¶14

J. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal Revenue Division.

¶15

The Tahisidar, Choutuppal lvlandal.

¶16

t The Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Bhonagiri District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ryray be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt4andamus i) declaring the action of the respondents in treating the land of the petitioner in Sy No.228lE3 to an extent of Ac,4-20 gts situated at Choutuppal Village, Bhongiri District as government land and thereby including the same in the prohibited list as illegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutional, ii) direct the respondents to delete the land in Sy No.228lE3 to an extent of Ac.4-2O gts situated at Choutuppal Village, Bhongiri District from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,^'1908 iii) directing the Sth respondenl to register and release the documents presented by the Petitioner in respect of the land in Sy No.228lE3 to an cxtent of Ac.4-2O gts situated at Choutuppal Village, Bhongiri District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition unde r Section 151 CPC prayino that in the :rr:unrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hig I Court ma^y' be pleased to direct the 5th Res )ondent to forthwith process and considr:r to, regrster and release the documents relating to the land in Sy No..228lE I^to z n extent of Ac. 4-20 gts situated a t Choutuppal Village, Bhonagiri District w thc ut reference to the communrcatior of the 4th respondent in Lr.\o. t]/::531;/201 1 dated 15.03.2012, pendinry clisposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH REDDY CHlt'lNOLt-A,

¶22

Counsel for the Re:;pondents: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO: 5587 OF 2019

¶24

Between:

¶25

Dakoji Venkat rmma, W/o. Dakoji Eshwaraiah ageC abot tl^'12 '/rs, Occ. House Wife Rl/o. Tangadpally Village, Choutuppal I,4and,rl Bhc nr iri^'/adadri District. Rep by her G^)A holder Sri Jana Raghu Ram S/c. Sublra ah, Aged about 30 Yrs, Occ. Business, Rjo. H.No. 3-5-93, Saroornag:rr, Rarrqrr R,:ddy District

¶26

.,.PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

State of Tplan,lana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Rever u,,r Dt:partment, Secretariat Hy Jerabad

¶29

The District Cc,llector, Bhonagiri District

¶30

The Revenue i)ivisional Officer, Choutuppal Reverue Divis on.

¶31

The Tahisidar, Choutuppal l/andal

¶32

The Sub-Regi:.trar, Choutuppal, Bhonagiri District

¶33

.R =SPONDENTS

¶34

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ol lndia praying that in the circumstances statel in the affidavit filed therewith, the lli,.rh 3ourt may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction or)e m(rre particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the actior of the respondents in treating the land :f the petitioner in Sy No.22B18 (')281AA:l) tr an extent of Ac.4-20 gts situated al Choutuppal Village, Bhongiri District rs government land and thereby including the same in the prohibited list as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ii) Jirect the respondents to delete the l; nrl ir Sy No.228lB (22BlAA2) to an ext,)nt of Ac.4-20 gts situated at Choutupp a Village, Bhongiri District from the list of prohibited properties undt-'r Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 191)8, iii) directing the 5th respondent to regliste,r and release the documents prese nted by the Petitioner in respect cf the and ir Sy No.228l8 (2281A42) to an extont of Ac.4-20 gts situated at Chc,utuppal Village, Bhongiri District.

¶35

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶37

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 5th Respondent to forthwith process and consider to, register and release the documents relating to the land in Sy No.22818 (2281AA2) to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts situated at Choutuppal Village, Bhonagiri District without reference to the communication of the 4th respondent in Lr- No. B/353512O11 dated 15.03.2012, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶38

Counsbl for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE

¶40

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶41

_-,

¶42

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI^{SUDHI'EIIKUMAR}

¶43

WRI'[ PETITION Nos.5569 AND 5587 fli' 2019

¶44

COMMON CTRDER:

¶45

The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are^t hc successors -in-interest of one late Mr. I\langzLli Nttrasai.tir, rvh o {ra l assigned land to an :xt :nt r.rf Acs. 18.00 ;gs., situated in Sy.No.22B througlL i)ro reedings RC No.5439/55/tl-3, dated 03.06.1955, s tuirted ir.t Choutr-rppa Village and Mandal, Yatladri Btruvanagrri District.

¶46

A por -ion of the said extent of l;Lncl ad measuring Acs.4.20 gtli., was stated to be treated as a G()/ernment land' ar-rd wirs included in the list of 'prohJbited 1;ro1>ertics' Some of the successors of the said lzrte I\1r l4angali Narasaiah approached this Court by {ilirg .'rit [)etition No.4O402 ol 2Ol7 and the said Writ Petition^,,;r: s :. liou,ed b1' a learncd single Judge of this Court by an orr:cr, dated 13.07 .2018, holding that the said assignrnent r,. rrs madc prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14O6, dated '.ta.oi I958 and there w€ s no corrdition ol non-alienation irr ri-rr: slid

¶47

::2::

¶48

MSl,.J \vt) 5569 & 5587 2019

¶49

ii I

¶50

assignment ald therefore, the provisior]s of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act, 1977'1, have no application to the said extent of land. Aggrieved by the said order passed in Writ Petition No.4O4O2 of 2017, the Statc fileci Writ Appeal No.91 of 2O2O arld. the same was dismisscd by a learned Division Bench of this Court by Judgment, dated 10.08.2021. The said judgment is stated to have become final.

¶51

The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are the persons claiming a similar extent of Acs.4.20 gts., out of the total extent of Acs. 18.00 gts., which was assigned in favour of late Mr. Mangali Narasaiah in the year 1955. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein stand on the same footing as that of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.404O2 of 2Ol7 and therefore, the petitioners herein are entitled for extending the benefit of the very same order, as confirmed in Writ Appeal No.91 of 2O2O. The factual aspects are not disputed by the learned A*sistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶52

¶53

J'1S li.J !P .i5(,9 & -5587 l0l9

¶54

) I

¶55

Takinl; into consideration the fact that the nature^of total extent oi Acs. 18.00^{gts., was} alread1'^{consi{lered by a} learnecj sin gle Judge of this Court :n \tr'rit Petition No.40402 o- 2Ol7 and the petitioners tLereirL, being the a successors ol' late Mr. Mangali Naraseiah, clairning portion out o{ the said extent of land Ac:;.18.t)0 gts., and the undisprrted fact situation, this Court is of the considered rier,r, that the issue involverl in these Writ Petitions is ;quarely covered by the ordel passrd^1ry this Court in Wri Petition No.40402 of 2Ol'/ , dated 13.07 .2018, as conlirmed in Writ Appeal No.91 <tf 2t)2O, dated 10.08.202 1 zrnd the petitioners herein are afso entitled for extension of^r he benefit of the said order.

¶56

In the light of the above, these two \rrit P:t tions are aliowed and the respondents are directed to delete the subject land admeasuring Acs.4.20 gts., n Sy.itlo.1l28 of Choutuppal Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhrrvenagiri District, each which is the subject matter ol therie twc Writ Petitions, fro rr the list of 'prohibited propertie s' under Section 22A tf the Registration Act, 1908 (for s ror t 'the Act, 1908'), and respondent No.5 further dirr:ct,rd to

¶57

¶58

¶59

l\t5K..l \/l' ,i56q & 55ti? 20ro

¶60

recelve, register and release the clocumcnts presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject land or portion thereof, without raising any objection that the said ianrj was included in the list of prohibited properties, under Section 22A of the Act, 19Og, subject to compliance of other formalities under the Indial Stamp Act, l B99 and the Registration Act, 190g.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellarreous petitions, pending if any in these writ petitions, srra, stand closed. No costs.

¶62

That the Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above

¶63

Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE, on this Monday, the Eleventh Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

¶64

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSTSTANT REGr9.{RAR //TRUE COPY// b/ SECTTON drrrcen

¶65

To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶66

The District Collector, Bhonagiri District

¶67

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal Revenue Division.

¶68

The Tahisidar, Choutuppal lvlandal.

¶69

The Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Bhonagiri District.

¶70

One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. tourl

¶71

Two CD Copies BN GJP / &

I I

HIGH COURI

DATED:1 110912023

COMMON OR DER

WP.Nos.5569 & 5587 of 2019

¶77

,/,if
l'
| :--
li)
lq sE? 1$8
l .
\ ,r,i

¶78

ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETTTIONT; WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

--'--;$fr! ), I
(,/6=

Dakoji Yadagiri v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakoji Yadagiri v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Jain Vs Sri MD Nayeemuddin

Mohammed Majeehid Ali Vs Smt. Valluri Kranti IAS

Y. Naga Satish Vs V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

R. Usha Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Kollu Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. Vs the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.