Sri. M. Lakshmana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. M. Lakshmana Reddy, S/o M. Mari Reddy, Age. 87 years, Occ. Retd. ExServicemen, R/o. Old MlG, BHEL, H.No. 789, Serilingampally, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500 032.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariate Building, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Sangareddy District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Sangareddy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of 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 in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 04.10.2024 for granting of NOC for alienation of land admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy. No^'191 and 30 situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District granted under the Ex-Servicemen Quota by the then Respondent No. 4 vide Procd. No. 1511124171 dated -.O5.1972 as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona l.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s

¶20

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 Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner's Representation dated 04.1O.2024 for granting of NOC for alienation of land admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy. No^'191 and 30 situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram lrrlandal, Sangareddy District gr€nted under the Ex-Servicemen euota by the then Respondent No. 4 vide Procd. No. 1511124171 dated -.05..1972 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMED NAWAZ HYDER ALt

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

rya

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.1868 oi 2o25

¶27

ORDER

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner was assigned / all() tted land to an extent of Acs.3.OO guntas in Sy.No. lgl l3() siruated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sungarecldv District uide proceedings No-1511124 l7l, clatecl nil-05. i972 under Ex-servicemen quota as per the policy enunciared bv the (iovernment in G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04,19C,3. tt is turther stated that in pursuance of the said allotment, the petirioner's name has been recorded in all the revenue records ancl he has been enjoying the said property as absolute owner. lt is lurrher stated that lhe Government, while revising irs policv enunciatecl in G.O.Ms.No.743, has issued^(i.().Ms.No. I I17, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, datecl 1I.11.1993, u,herein rhe Government drrected the Commissioner ol Lancl Revenue, to permit the Ex-Servicemen to sell away the assigned lands af ter 10 years frorn the date o[ assignment. lt is lurrher sratecl that when the petitioner has taken a decision ro sell the properlv rtrc prospective purchasers are insisting to obtatn N r-r Objection Certilicate from the District Collector ancl others, expluining the reasons the petitioner has submitted :r represen t.rtlon, dated 04.1O.2024 seeking for issuance ol No ()biectton Cer-rilicate tcr

¶29

.T

¶30

(.VBR. J wp lt{68 2025

¶31

cnable hlnr to deal with the subject property as absolLrte owner and :rlso ro cntcr into a salc agreement witlr the prospectrve purt--hascrs. Thc grievance of the petitioner is th.t even after rcr:cir.ing t ltr' said representation, the respondent authorities are nol r:on sidc:rrng tlte same.

¶32

Consiclered the submissions of the learne,C counsr:l lor the respective l).rrties and with their consent, this,,vrit petition was drsposecl itt the admisston stage.

¶33

:]. In r rcu o[ the submissions made by the learrred coqnsel tbr thc rcsl)cctlve parties, this Court, without expressrng any opinion on I he merits of the matter and since the.petitioner has alrcirdr srritrnittecl a representation, dated 04.fO.2024 seeking lirr rssLrarrcc No Ob.jection Certificate in lerrns of (-i.O.Ms. No. 1 I 17. rl:rtt'rl I 1.1 l.1993, deems it appropriate to disposc o[ this r,r'nt p('tition directing the respondents to examlne the rcprcscnL:rriorr submitted bv the petitioner and rl the petitioner fultils irll t hc' r'c<luirements, consider his case for rssuanc:c of No ()bic.tion C,_'rtificarte and if the petitioner is r.rot ehgible for issuancc ot' llte same, pass a reasoned order and commrrnicatc thc s:tmrr l.iihin a period of eight (Og) weeks from the rlate of rccerpt o[:r r-opl ol this ordcr.

¶34

('vut(. J Wp l66t{ 2025

¶35