Pavan Kumar Ismal @ Ins Pavan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Pavan Kumar lsmal @ INS pavan Kumar, S/o.Latepullanna @ KishenKumari. aged about 64 vears. oc:. Agncultur" nyo.i.r.ro z_+olr'.-il;"kli; ;i[;; Shankarpatty Mand'at. Ransa Reao;bi;i;i^{'"" ""}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanoana Represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreiariat, Hyae;;b;J.-

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongarakalan.

¶14

The Revenue Divisionar officer, chevefla Division, Rana Reddy District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Shankarpally [,4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constrtution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith the High'c,iri ,"y^'0" pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, partrcurarry one rn the nature of writ of fulandamus, decraring the action of the Respondents in not reassigning ihe agricurturar land in sy No g6/38 admeasuring Ac.1 .20gts ,no sv"-r.ro.6or+o admeasrrring Ac.2.05gts situated at Mokira viilale, shankarprrrf vaniar,.-nul..,g" Reddy District pursuant to the representations dited 18 11)024 or tne fetiiioner by incorporating his name in the revenue records, pahanies ano in anu:Bh;rainr Portal as per the procedure contemprated under records of the Teranganu nig;t, in Land and^pattadar pass Book and rerangana Assigned Lanos leiorrioiiio-n ot Transfers) Act, 1977 under section 3 (5) anJ 4(b) (;) of the Terangana n"iig".o Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment; Aci,'ZOOS as iltegai arnitraiy'anA violative of Articres 14, 21 , and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequen y direct the respondents to consider the aforesaid rep.esentaiions ot the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders may deem iit rno p.p"i in the circumstances of the case.

4

fl,, -f/ /1 /

:/

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,-.i'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou.t may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representatio^-s dated 18.11 .2024 submitted by the petitioner for reassign the land in Sy.N r.96/38 admeasuring Ac.1.20gts and Sy.No.96/40 admeasuring Ac.2.O5gts situa ed at Mokila village, Shankarpally l\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the oetitioner and mutate in his name in the revenue records as well as Bhu-Bharrr Portal and issue E- Pattadar Pass Books, pending disposal of writ petition and^p rss

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. MOHD SUBHAN PASHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent's No's 1 TO 4 : GP FOR REVE.NUE

¶25

The Courl made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.28214 OF 2o25.

¶28

ORAL ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H.Somaiah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents

¶30

The Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.i-20 guntas 1n Sy.No.96/38 and Ac.2-O5 guntas 1n Sy.No.96/40, situated at Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed dated 06.07.1989 bearing Document No.779O/1989 from his vendor Subba Raju. According to the petitioner, his vendor purchased the suLrject land from the original assignees i.e., Naldigama Venkanna, S/o.Saanna and Papagiri Gandaia-h, S/o.Papaiah under registered sale deeds bearing Doc.No.506l/1987 dated 19.06.1987 and Doc.No.7288 / 1987, dated 07.10.1987. He is in possession of the subject property. He came to know that under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, long standing possession and transfers made prior to

¶31

2

¶32

:1,.

¶33

the Act can be considered for protection and rr:gularization by the competent authority. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 18.11.2024 to the 2".^ps5pondent with a request to reassign the subject land in lavour of the petitioner. Despite receiving and acknowleclpling the said representation, the 2"d respondent did not z.ct upon the salne Aggrieved by the said inaction of the 2n(r respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶34

Whereas, the learned Assistalt Governrrrent Pleader for Assignment, on instructions, would ,.ubmit that respondent No.2 will consider arrd disp rse of the representation dated la.ll.2024 submitt,rd by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with larv

¶35

In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to :onsider the representation dated 78.11.2024 submitt,:d by the petitioner, with a request to reassign the sr-r.rject land in his favour, by putting the petitioner and zLll interested parties on notice ald affording them an op1; ortunity. If respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the r'.:quest made by the petitioner, he shall pass orders assigrring specifrc

¶36

w ,.,*;rt/

¶37

J)

¶38

reasons and commLrnicate a copy of the same to the petitioner. He shall compiete the entire exercise within three (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶39

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶41

shall stand ciosed.

¶42

SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL PUryREGISTRAR

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

ECTION OFFICER