Disposed

G. Suresh Babu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Sept 2025WP/28845/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought deletion of their assigned land purchased from freedom fighters from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Collector had rejected their application with a single word 'Rejected' without assigning reasons. The court set aside the rejection as non-speaking and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.3 to consider the application and pass orders after notice within 60 days.

G. Suresh Babu Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28845 0F 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

¶9

G. Suresh Babu, S/o. Eshwari-ah, fge 61 years, Rl/o.H.No. 1-4_1 .1 , Street No. 7, Habsiguda, Hyderabad - 500007^-

¶10

2 I^{S.qi Sfyqln, S/o G VishweshwarRao, aged} 33^years, R/o.^{.1-8_50/3/13,} Plot No. 11, Krishna Nagar colony, prenderghist road; Secunderabad.

¶11

3 G.Pufnachander Rao, S/o.G_Venkateswara Rao, aged 45 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. 1-B-SO|3/13, plot No. t t,^-kiisfrn5- ttagar colony, Prenderghast road, Secunderabad.

¶12

4 G.Ravi Chandra, S/o:G.Vijay_ Kumar, aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H.No. 1-4-1't , Street Nb.-2, HaOsiguO-a, ffyOeraOaO _ 500007

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Telangana,

¶17

Hyderabad.

¶18

3, The collector and District tvagistrate, siddipet District (rVledak), Terangana State.

¶19

The Revenue Divisionar officer, Gajwer, siddipet District (rvedak), Terangana State.

¶20

The Tahsildar, [Vlulugu lVandal, Siddipet District, Telangana State.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 of l\rrandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

¶23

(a) declaring the rejec;tion Apprication for passbook Data correctio n 2500044584 by the co'ector and District tulagistrate, siddipet District (rvedak), Terangana State as illegal and arbitrary

¶24

(b) declaring the land of an extent of Ac..10-00 in Sy Nos.127i26, Ac.1_.19 guntas in Sy- No.127l3 0r E,andamairaran Vrrage, Murugu Mandar, siddipet District (Medak) is a private patta rand and that incrusion of the said rands in the rist of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as iilegar, arbitrary, contrary t. the provisions of the Registration Act and viorative of Articre 300-4 of the Constituti,:n of lndia

¶25

(c) consequenfly direct the respondents to derete the said rand of an extent of Ac. 10-00 in Sy l:,os.127126 and Ac.1_19 guntas in Sy No..127l3 of Bandamailaran Village [,4ulugu lvlandal, Siddipet District (Medak) from the tist of prohibited properties.

¶26

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶27

Petition under sr:ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in stupport of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the responderts herein to permit the petitioners to construct building/godown in their property of an extent of Ac.10-00 in Sy Nos.l27 /26, Ac. 1-19 guntas in sy No 1 27 r3 0f Bandamairaran Virage. [vurugu I,4andar, Siddipet District (Medak); penrJing disposar of the above wnt petition

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.BALAJI VARMA

¶29

counsel for the Respondents: sRr L.RAVTNDER, AGp FoR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

TITIi IIONOT]RABI,E SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHi\TAN WRt'l'PETITION No.28845 of 2025

¶31

ORAL ORDER:

¶32

I Ieard lcamcd counsel for the petitioners and

¶33

Mr. L.Ravincler'. learr.red Assistant Govemment Pleader lor

¶34

Revenue appearing firr the respondents

¶35

'l'he I'etitioncrs hcrcin are clain.ring that they ale the absolute owners ancl possessors o f thc land admeasuring Ac. I 0-00 gts in Sy.No.l2712 (old No.l2716, Ac.l-13 gts ln Sv.No. 127l-i and Ac.0-06 gts in Sy.No. l21l3E, total land admeasuring Ac. I l- l9 gts, situated at Bandamailararn Village, Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet District. They have pulchased the subject property from freedom fighters

¶36

Referring to G.O.Ms.No. I I l0 dated 24.05.1960 and G.O.Ms.No.4i8 dated 24.03.1964, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that h'eedom lighters are entitled to alienate the property after completion of [0 years of assignment. Accordingly, they have alienated the subject property in favour of petitioners, on cornplction ol I0 yeals of assignment. Even then, the subject property is urentioned in the list of prohibited

¶37

¶38

¶39

properties.^'t'herefbre, petitioncrs herein havc subrnitted online application l\o.2500044584, to^{the respondentNo..l with a request} to delete l.he subject propcrty fi'onr thc^list of^{prol'ribited propcrties.} He has re.rectcd the sarre,"r,ith ottc u'orcl^"Rejectcd",

¶40

Pe rus;tl ol the said rc-iection order wotrld^{reveal that} respondent \o.3 has re.iectcd the request^made by^{the petitioner} with one wc,rd "Rejected". It is not a l'easonecl older.^{No reasons} were assigned Any order passed without^{reasons is an order} passed without application of nrind and it is norl-est. Theretbre,^the irnpugned rejection order is liable to bc sct^asicle.

¶41

In vi<:w of the albrcsaicl cliscussions,^{rvitlrout goinginto} merits and dernerits of the casc. this Writ^{I']etitiotris disposed of,} setting aside the impugned rc.jcction order and^{the matteris} remanded brlck to thc 3''r t'esponclcnt^{with a dircctionto consider} the aforesairl online applicatron No.2500044-584^{subrnittedby the} petitioneL uith a specific requcst to deletc thc subject^properly frorn t['re list of prohibited plope rlies aud^{pass apltropriate orders} strictly in ac:cordance with^lar,r, alicsh, by^{puttingthe petitioneron} notice and alfording hinr an opportunity. Respotrdent No.3 shall consider 1l-rc aloresaid two^(l.O's and also convct'sion^proceedings dated I5.r')6.1992 of respondent No.5. IIc sliall also considcr the

¶42

¶43

order dated 08 10.2023 in W.P.No.4l295 of 2017 of this Court in

¶44

respect of thc samc village. I{owever, he shall cornplete the said exercise within a pcriocl ol60 days fi-orn thc date of receipt of copy

¶45

of this order. Therc shall bc no ordcr as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶47

stand closed

¶48

SD/- C. DEEPIKA S TANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Se tariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

¶53

The chief^{commissioner of Land Administration, Governmentof Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶54

¶55

The collector^{and Districttrilagistrate,Siddipet District (Medak), Telangana} State.

¶56

The Revenue^{Divisional officer, Gajwel, siddipetDistrict(Medak), Telangana} State.

¶57

The^{Tahsildar,tr/ulugu Mandal,Siddipet District, Telangana State'}

¶58

One CC^{to SRI P.BALAJI VARI!{A'Advocate [OPUC]}

¶59

T.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶60

Two CD^CoPies

BSR

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912025

ORDER

ii ..-)
t,r) 1I nH :i:ii
-.,.
t.

¶68

WP.No.28845 of 2025

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

o
\ d K

G. Suresh Babu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Suresh Babu 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

M/s.Taurus Earthmovers Limited (in liqn) Vs Nil

M/s. Vaishu Engineering Industries Limited(in liqn) Limited Vs Nil

In the matter of M/s.Arrow Metalspin Limited (in liqn) Vs No Respondent

Poreddy Narendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kande Pawan Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Dhidigam Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana