Allowed

Chelimela Pramod Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Dec 2025WP/18173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of an ex-serviceman allotted land in 1966 challenged cancellation of their pattadar passbooks under Section 8 of the Telangana RoR Act, 2020. Holding no fraud was established, rights were judicially affirmed and resumption was belated, the High Court set aside the cancellation and ordered restoration of revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024 dated 26.05.2025 set aside; respondents directed to restore petitioners' names in Dharani and connected revenue records; interim status quo merged.

Chelimela Pramod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I I

¶2

[^32ee l

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18173 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chelimela Pramod Kumar, S/o. Late Ch. Krishna Swamy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-1 0-'19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶10

Chelimela Mahalaxmi, W/o. Late Ch.Laxminarayana, aged about 52 years, Occ. Hotrsewife, Fl/o. H.No.2-10-'19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram RaiWay Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶11

C.Eshwar Raju, S/o. Late Ch. Narasimha, aged about 60 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶12

Chelimela Ramnarayana, S/o. Late Ch.Narasimha, aged about 57 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Fl/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001.

¶17

The District Collector, Medchal:Malkajgiri District. Godumakunta, Secunderabad - 501301 .

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Keesara, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings No.E1lD1/111712024, dated

¶22

26.05.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent where under the pattadar pass Bookscum{itle deeds were cancefled with a further direction to the 5th Respondent to resume the petitioners rand in survey No.g36/2, an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in survey No.937/2 an extent of Ac.3-03 gts and in survey No.942 an extent of Ac.S00 gts., situated at Jawaharnagar village, Kapra Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, as being iflegar, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions as contained in Sec.8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 2020 as welr as Sec.166-8 of rerangana Land Revenue Acr, 1317 Fasri and arso in gross violation of the orders passed by this Hon,ble court dated 0g.06.1972 in w.p. No.3708 of 1970, orders dated r0.07.1984 in w.p. No.5097 of 1979, orders dated '10.07.1984 passed in w.p. No.'r91g4 of 2009 and arso in gross vioration of the orders passed by the commissioner of Land Revenue dt.12.07.1g86 and arso against the settred proposition of raw laid .down by the constitutionar courts and consequenfly to set aside the proceedings No.E1to,lt1117l2o24, dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, in the interest of justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶24

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings No.E1ID1t111712024, dated 26 '05 '2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposar of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Sth Respondent not to effect any changes in Dharani portar rerating to the petitioners rand in survey No.g36/2, an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in Survey No.g37r2 an extent of Ac.3-03 gts and in Survey No.g42 an exteht of Ac.5_00 gts., vide Khata Nos'601 71, 60174. 60172 and 60173, situated at Jawaharnagar virage, Kapra Mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri District, pending disposar of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶27

lA NO: 3 oF 202s

¶28

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 not to disturb the physical and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in Survey No.936/2, an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in Survey No.937/2 an extent of Ac.3-03 gts and in Survey No.942 an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., situated at Jawaharnagar village, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of^justice.

¶29

lA NO:4 OF 2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

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

¶32

The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Godumakunta, Secunderabad - 501301.

¶33

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Keesara, IMedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶34

The Tahsild ar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

AND

¶38

Chelimela Pramod Kumar, S/o. Late Ch. Krishna Swamy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶39

Chelimela Mahalaxmi, Wo. Late Ch.Laxminarayana, aged about 52^years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶40

C.Eshwar Raju, S/o. Late Ch. Narasimha, aged about 60^years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶41

Chelimela Ramnarayana, S/o. Late Ch.Narasimha, aged about 57^years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Ri/o. H.No.2-10-19, Shivam Bavi, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Burtonguda, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶42

...PETITIONERS

¶43

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

¶44

vacate the lnterim orders dt.22.o6.202s passed yin w.p. No.1g173 of 2o2s and dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI

¶46

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. R. SNEHITHA REDDY, AGp REPRESENTING GP FOR ASSIGNMENT SRI D.V. CHALAPATHI RAO

¶47

The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER

¶48

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT No. 18 173 oF 2025

¶50

Dated : 02.12.2025

¶51

Between :

¶52

Chelimela Pramod Kumar and others.

¶53

Petitioners.

¶54

And

¶55

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶56

... Respondents.

¶57

ORDER:

¶58

The present writ petition is liled by the petitioners under Article

¶59

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

¶60

"..1o issue a r,vrit, order or direction more particularly one in r-he nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.El/D1/ I LLT 12024, dated 26.o5.2025 issued by the 3.rt Respondent where under the Pattadar Pass Books-cum-title deeds were cancelled with a fi-rrther direction to the 5ft Respondent to resume the petitioners land in survey No.936/2, an extent of Ac.2-00 gts., in survey No.93T l2 an extent of Ac.3-03 gts., and in Survey No.942 an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., situated at Ja'*'aharnagar village, Kapra Mandal, MedcharMalkajgiri District, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions as contained in sec.S of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2o2o as well as Sec.166-8 of Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and also in gross violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble court dated 08.06.1972 in w.P.No.3708 of t97o, orders dated 1o.07. 1984 in w.P.No.5o97 of 1979, orders dated Lo.oz.L9B4 passed in W.P.No.i9184 of 2OO9 and also in gross violation of the orders passed by the commissioner of Land Revenue dt.l2.or.19g6 and also against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Cbnstitutional Courts and consequently to set aside the Proceedings

¶61

No.EllDlllll7 12024, dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent...".

¶62

Heard Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.R.Snehitha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Assignment Sri DV Chalapathi Rao.

¶63

The petitioners seek judicial intervention against Proceedings No.EI IDL llllT 12024 dated 26.O5.2025 issued by the 3'a respondent, whereby their pattadar passbooks-cum-title deeds pertaining to survey Nos.936l2 (Ac.2.00 gts.), 937 (Ac.3.03 gts.), 938 (Ac.3.10 gts.) and 94212 (Ac.5.00 gts.) situated at Jawaharnagar village were cancelled.

¶64

The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that Late C.Narsimha, an ex-serviceman, 'ul,as allotted Ac.16.37 guntas of land in survey Nos.936, 937, 938 and 942 (hereinafter referred to as "subject land") by the Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Society for Ex-Servicemen through a resolution dated 09.1¹ .1966. The land had been taken over from the Military Estate Officer on 23.07.1951 for rehabilitation of ex-army personnel and subsequently, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 23.1O.1952, the same u,as allotted to the Labour Department for rehabilitation purposes. The area, initially known as the anti-tank range, was later renamed "Jawahar Nagar." .<sup>..

¶65

.<sup>.. .

¶66

(a) Assignments to ex-servicemen were governed by G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04. 1963, prescribing a non-alienation^period of ten years, subsequently relaxed by G.O.Ms.No.1^I 17^dated 1 1. I l. 1993, permitting sale after ten years without^GovernmenL permission. The subject land was later included in the prohibited list under G.O.Ms.No.786 of L999.

¶67

(b) Late C.Narsimha expired on 30.08.2002. Subsequently, his legal heirs viz.Krishna Swamy (father of respondent No.1) and respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed W.P.No.19184 of^{2OO9, resulting} in this Court directing verification of legal heirship on 04.12.2023. Pattadar passbooks were thereafter issued in their favour.

¶68

(c) The petitioners subsequently filed a representation dated 14.O5.2024 seeking deletion of the subject land from the prohibited list. Notwithstanding the petitioners' detailed reply dated O1.O3.2O25, the 3.d respondent issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the pattadar passbooks r,vithout granting a personal hearing, allegedly under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (hereinafter "ROR Act, 2O2O") read with Section 166-8 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

¶69

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition - tfi:der Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserting that the

¶70

impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory provisions and contrary to constitutional guarantees and seeking restoration of their entries in Dharani and other revenue records.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land was lawfully allotted to late C.Narsimha and has been continuously possessed and cultivated by the petitioners since 1966, corroborated by revenue receipts, electricity bills, society records, earlier passbooks and administrative recognition vide cLR,s Lr.No.BB 1 / 1465 /86 dated t2.OT .1986.

¶72

(a) Judicial protection of possession was granted in w.P.Nos.3707 & 3708 of LgTo and w.p.No.s097 of tgrg, wirh subsequent verification and issuance of pattadar passbooks in W.P.No.19184 of 2OO9. Inclusion of the land in the prohibited list under G.o.Ms-No.786 of 1999 is contrary to law and binding judicial precedents, including BHEL Employees.Model M.A.c.H.B.s. Ltd. Vs. state of Telanganal and Ande Narasimha Rao vs. state of A.p.z.

¶73

(b) Section 8 of the RoR Act, 2o2o applies solely to fraudulent passbooks issued in respect of Government land. The petitioners, title is traceable to a valid allotment repeatedly upheld by judicial orders

¶74

'2027^SCC Online TS 3640 2 20t3 (3) ALT soo

¶75

and administrative ve rifications. The impugned proceedings were issued in violation of principles of natural justice, as no personal hearing was granted.

¶76

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, reiterating the contents of the counter, filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, as the impugned proceedings No.El l Dl l IlIT 12024 dated 26.05.2025 were issued strictly in accordance rvittr lavr,'upon verification of revenue records, which clearly establish that the subject land continues to be Government land and that pattadar passbooks were erroneously and fraudulently generated in Dharani portal without any valid assignment. The petitioners' reliance on the alleged status of late C.Narsimha as an Ex-Serviceman and on unverified "allotments" said to have been made by a Co-operative Society is misconceived, since no Government assignment patta or originzrl file exists in his favour, nor does his name appear in an-v auttrorised arssignment register. The writ orders cited by the petitioners merely protccted membership within the Society and did not confer title or direct Government assignment and mere possession, hor,r,ever long, cannot create rights over Government property. The petitioners' assertion that the land should be excluded from the prohibited list is untenable, as the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.743 of 1963 or G.O.Ms.No.lll7 of 1993 apply only to valid assignees, which the

¶77

¶78

petitioners' predecessor in title is not rightful claimant. Contrary to their claim, notices \ rere duly issued, their u,ritten submissions were considered and personal hearing is not mandatory. The impugned order was passed after due process and the petitioners are attempting to perpetuate unlawful occupation of Government land based on unverifiable Society documents and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶79

Having considered the rival submissions, the statutory framework and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that although section 8 of the RoR Act, 2o2o empo'vvers the District Collector to cancel pattadar passbooks obtained fraudulently in respect of Government land, such power can be exercised only upon proof of fraud or procedural illegality.

¶80

The record unequivocally establishes that the possession and entitlement of the petitioners' predecessors were judicially recogntzed in W.P.Nos.37o8 of l9zo, So97 of tgzc) and i9lg4 of 2oog. Pursuant to judicial directions, legal heirship vr,ars du15, verifiecl and pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioners, which, under Section 9 of the RoR Act, 2o2o, constitute prima facie evidence of title. The principles enunciated in vishwa vijay Bharati vs.

¶81

¶82

Fakhrul Hassan3 and Partap singh vs. shiv Rama affirm that revenue entries carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent proof of fraud or illegality. No such material has been placed on record in the present case.

¶83

F-or the sake of brevity and easy understanding, the relevant paragraph in vishwa Vijay Bharati (3ra supraf is reproduced hereunder :

¶84

"L4. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate enquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to the genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of vvhat the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a documcnt of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory tiLle."

¶85

il. Likewise, the relevanr paragraphs in Partap Singh Vs.

¶86

Shiv Ram (4th supra) is reproduced hereunder :

¶87

"2O...... The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can only be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted."

¶88

'^(tglo) i scc 642 o 1zozo1^{r r scc242}

¶89

The record reveals that the matterr^/as earlier carried in appeal belore the competent appellate authority, namely the commissioner of Land Revenue, who, by order dated 12.0r.19g6, confirmed the rights of petitioners in w.p.No.5o97 of 1979, including late c.Narasimha, who is the father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the grandfather of petitioner No.1 and the father-in-law of petitioner No.2 herein. Pursuant to and in implementation of the said appellate order, pattadar passbooks were duly issued in favour of the petitioners as the Iegal heirs of late C.Narasimha. Inasmuch as the issue had attained finality upon adjudication by a competent quasi-judicial authority, after considering the orders passed by the District Collector, the subsequent action of the District Collector in cancelling the pattadar passbooks of the petitioners and directing the 5th respondent to resume the subject land is whotly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. S"lf, acrion amounts to a gross violation and abuse of the binding judicial and quasi-judicial orders of the final adjudicating authority ancl is conrrary to the statutory mandate under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land ancl Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2o2o and Section i66-B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

¶90

The impugned proceedings disregard binding judicial orders, long-standing administrative recognition and the principles of l' natural justG. The impugned action suffers from arbitrariness and

¶91

violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. The doctrine against approbation and reprobation, as^reiterated in Union of India^and others Vs. N.Murugesan and otherss, squarely applies. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under^:

¶92

"26. These phrases are borror,t,ed from the Scott's law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold."

¶93

In Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Company and another6 the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.16 observed as under :

¶94

"L6. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle vvhich is reasonablc itsell shall be labelled as arbitrary and every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary".

¶95

The attempt by the official respondents to question the allotment made in favour of the petitioners' father after an unexplained lapse of nearly five decades is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable. The allotment, possession and entitlement had been repeatedly examined, affirmed and acted upon by this Court and by the revenue authorities themselves through verification arnd issuance of^pattadar passbooks. The impugned notice constitutes a collateral challenge to

¶96

5 1zozz1 2 scc 25

¶97

u lzoo:; 5 scc 4i7

¶98

binding judicial orders that have attained finality and is therefore barred by the principles of res jud.icata and finality of litigation. In the absence of any established fraud, invocation of Section g of the RoR Act,2o2o to unsettle settled rights is wholly unjustified.

¶99

This court further notes that Late c.Narsimha acquired rights over the subject land pursuant to a rawfur ailotment made in 1966 by t-he Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Societl. for Ex-servicemen, in furtherance. of Government poricy under G.o.Ms.No.2s dated 23.ro.rgs2. The allotment conferred a legally cognizable right to possession and enjoyment, consistently recognized through revenue records, administrative correspondence and repeated judicial orders. The initial non-alienation condition under G'o'Ms'No'743 dated 30.04. i963 merely regulated transfer and did not affcct the validity of the allotment or possession. Upon expiry of the stipulated period and in view of G.o.Ms.No .LLrr dated 11.11.1993, the restriction stood relaxed, enlarging the incidents of ownership.

¶100

During his lifetime, Late c.Narsimha,s entitlement \,as repeatedly verified and affirmed, resulting in a settled and heritable interest. upon his demise on 30.0g.2oo2, these rights lawfully devol'ed upon his legal heirs pursuant to judicially directed verification. The statutory limitations governing assigned lands do not empower the r -

¶101

State to retrospectively annul a lawful allotment in the^{absence of} flraud, misrepresentation or breach of conditions.

¶102

Thc impugned action, initiated after nearly five decades of uninterrupted possession and official recognition, suffers from^gross and unexplained delay. Even where no specific period of limitation is prescribed, statutory and administrative powers affecting civil and property rights must be exercised within a reasonable time. A belated reopening of settled issues is barred by the doctrines of limitation, laches, acquiescence and finality and amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of Articles 14 and 3OO-A of the Constitution. Prolonged State acquiescence defeats equity and reflects abuse of discretionary power.

¶103

In H.Guruswamy and others Vs. A.Krishnaiah since

¶104

deceased by LRs7, with regard to limitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.17, observed as under :

¶105

"17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration.^'l'he rules of limitation are based on the principles oI sound public^polic-v and^principlesof equity. No Court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles'^hanging overtheheadofthelitigantforanindefiniteperiodoftime.,,

¶106

'^{(zozs) SCC onlineSC 54}

¶107

¶108

20- The Hon'ble supreme court has repeatedly emphasized that settled proprietary rights acquire finality and a belated or unexplained reopening of such rights by administrative authorities amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 3o0_A of the constitution. These principles squarely apply to the present case, where the petitioners'rights, based on lawful allotment, long_standing possession and judicially verilied heirship, have been repeatedly recognized and cannot be unsettle without due process and evidence of fraud

¶109

Admittedly, the State retains regulatory control over the lands allclttecl under welfare or institutional schemes, however, such power is not unfettered. Once an allotment is lawfully made and acted upon and the beneficiary has enjoyed possession with official recognition for a substantial period, the State cannot nulli$ the allotment merely upon a reappraisal of records or a change of opinion. Any cancellation or resumption must be founded on clear statutory authority, a demonstrable breach of the conditions of allotment and strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

¶110

Recently, the High court for the State of Andhra pradesh in v.chenchaiah Naidu vs. The state of Ap (In writ Appeal No.7sG of ., .1 2025, dated L4.L1.2O25f observed as under :

¶111

"The objective of assigning land to ex-servicemen is a measure of demonstrating the gratitude of the nation to persons defending its borders and people. It is also in a manner, an incentive for volunteers who serve, in the Armed Forces of tndia. Such an objective, cannot be whittled down by, bureaucratic procedure...."

¶112

The allotment of land to freedom fighters and exservicemen is a welfare measure rooted in State policy and constitutional values of rehabilitation and social justice and not a mere act o[ largesse. Such allotments, when made pursuant to Government polic-r, and acted upon for decades, create vested and heritable rights subject only to the conditions imposed at the time of grant. The nonalienation conditions under G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 were regulatory and upon their relaxation under G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated i 1.11.1993, the allottee's rights stood enlarged. In the absence of fraud or violation of conditions, the State cannot, after long acquiescence and repeated judicial and administrative recognition, reopen or nullify such u,elfare allotments, as doing so would defeat the very object of the scheme and amount to arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution.

¶113

24 The erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Ananthapur

¶114

t4:.

¶115

District and another8 with regard to the power of resumption of assigned lands observecl as trnder

¶116

"....the po\.er of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended bc.r.'ond a reasonable period, in any event, not rater than five to six years. Even within five to "i* y".i" when the power has to be exercised, there must be ,r."."""ry inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned....,,

¶117

25- when the facts of the case on hand are tested on the settled proposition ol la',r' laid down in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proccedings No.Er lDl / rttz 12024 dared 26.os.2o2s are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. T'he respondents have failed to estabrish any fraud, misrepresentation or statutory violation so as to invoke the power under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar Passbooks Act, 2o2o. c)n the contrary, the record demonstrates long_ standing possession, repeated administrative recognition and binding judicial alfirmations in favour of the petitioners and their predecessorin-interest, ',r'hich havc attained finality. The belated cancellation o[ pattadar passbooks, rvithout aclherence to principles of natural justice and in disregard of settled rights, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property and violates Articles l4 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶118

.\ /'

¶119

8 tggq scc online AP 637

¶120

15:

¶121

The impugned action is also vitiated by gross delay, acquiescence and an impermissible collateral chailenge to final judicial orders.

¶122

26- Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. proceedings No.ELlDlllllT12024 dated 26.os.2025 issued by the 3.d respondenr are hereby set asidc. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioners' names in Dharani and all connected revenue records forthwith- The interim order of status quo dated 27.06.2025 shall stand merged u,ith this final order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶123

27 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶124

closed.

¶125

SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER