Bejjanki Bhaskar And Another Vs The State of Telangana And Another

1. Alugubelli Venkat Reddy, S/ o. Late. A. Laxma Reddy,^{age-d49. yea^rs, Occ.} . Agri-culture, R/ o. H.No.3-78, Kudakuda Village, Chivemula Mandal, suryapet

¶10

i District

¶11

...PETr*oNERa

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal} Secretary,^Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Dishict Collector, Suryapet District.

¶15

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet^District. 4 The Tahsildaf cum Joint Sub - Registrar, Suryapet,^{SuryapetDistrict.} The Sub-Registrar, Suryapet, Suryapet District

¶16

6^ Chamakuri Radhakrishne, S/o. Rdmalingam,^{aged about4Syears'OccPvt.} Employee, R/o.H.No.Villa No.56, High^{Rise KVR Paradise, Bachupalty'} Hyderabad.

¶17

1. KiDayakar Reddy, 8/o.Ram Reddy,^{Agedabout68 years, Occ. Business,R/o.} H No-'1-6-102./3ii , Vidyanagar,^{SuryaBet,Suryapet district.}

¶18

B. Nallapati Anuradha, W7o. Ramesh.^{Aged about 54 years, Occ. Housewife,} R/o. H.No.1s-8411.W Road. Suryapet, Suryapet district.

¶19

Kakkareni Pavani, Wo. Upender,^{AgeO afoJt43 years, occ. Housewife,R/o.} H.No.'1-6-14111 l26i2l3l2 2nd ward,^{Vidyanagar, Suryapet Suryapetdistrict.}

¶20

Malle Sharada,^{W/o.Kri$hnaReddy.Agiedabout 52 years, Occ.Housewife,} R/o.^{H. No. 1} -6-1^{41 l28l4l3l1. Suryapet Suryapel district.}

¶21

(RR Q tq 10 are impleaded as^per C O.dt. 06.03.202!ⁱⁿ lA^{No. 212022.)}

¶22

...nespoHoEurs

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction^{more particularlyonein} the natqre of Writ of Mandamus^{declaring impugnqd proceedingin letter} No.E3l'1035-32 12021 daled^{14-6-2022keeping the subject land in Sy. No.298} admeasuring Ac.2-26^{gts situatedat B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandaland}

¶24

Districtasillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalconsequentlytosetasidethe proceedingNo.No.E:3/1035-32t2021da|edl4t6t2O22ofrespondenl'No.2keeping the subject^{land in lSy. No 29B admeasuring keeping the subjer':t land in Sy'} No.2gSadmeasuringAc.2-26gtssituatedatB.MadharamVillagesUryapetMandal and District in the^{prohibition list.}

¶25

A NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition unde: section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'} the^{High court may be pleased to} suspend the^{proceerJing Nq E3/1035'32t2O21} dated^{1418,]2022 keeplngthe subject} land in Sy.^{tllo 298 admeasur:ing} !-a?-ZQ^{g!9 situate{ at p Madharam Village,} suryapet Mandal^{and Diqtrict ip the prohibi!!99 list pending disposalpf the above} Writ Petition

¶27

Counsel for the^{Petitiongfs:SRI RAMAKRISHNAK--} Counsel for the^Rqspondent !{os.1^{TO 5:} QP^{FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respo4dent^{Nos.6 TO 10:'SBlA'PRABHAKAR RAO}

¶28

The C-qurt mqde^{thq followinglORP.-ER}

¶29

-$'

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.315OO of 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶34

"....to issue an appropiate WiL Order or direction more partiatlarly one in the noture of Wnt of M<tndamus declaing tmpugned proceeding in tetter No.E3/ 1O3532/ 2021 dated 14.6.2022 keeping the subject land in Sg.No.298 admeasuing Ac.2.26 gts situated at B.Madhoram Village, Suryapet Mandql and Distict as illegal, arbitrary qnd unconstitutional con s,equentlA to set aside the proceeding No-83/ 103532/2O21 dated 14/6/2022 of respond.ent No.2 keeping tLE subject Land in Sg.No.298 admeasuring keeping the subject land in Sg.No.298 admeasuing Ac.2.26 gts situated at B.Madharam Vittage, Suryapet Mandal and Distict in the prohibition list...."

¶35

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

It is stated that petitioner No.2 is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 16.08 guntas in Sy.No.298 situated at B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandal and District, having acquired the same by way of succession. It is further stated that petitioner No.2, along with his family members have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 15931 of 2021, dated 10. 11.2021 in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.298lEE/5 situated at B.Madharam Village, Suryapet Mandal and District. The case of the petitioners is that when third

¶37

2

¶38

parties are irl[erfering with their^possession, they hav: instituted O.S.No.2^{o1' 2',022} on the file of the Additional^Disr rict Judge, Suryapet anrl the same is^pending for adjudication. -t rs further case of the^pe titioners that acting on the letter, dated 37 .O5.2O22 issued by rr spondent No.4-the Tahsildai, Suryapet, and report dated 04.06^1]022 submitted by^respondent No.3-tf e Revenue Divisional C)fficer, Suryapet, respondent No.2-the Distri,:;t Collector, issued impr-rgned^proceedings in ietter No.E3/ lO35-321 2O2l, dated 14.06.2022 di'-ecting respondent No.S-the Sub-Registrar', Suryapet, to list lancl tr an extent of Ac.2.26^guntas in Sy.No.2()8/EE/5 in prohibited F,r,rcerties list and not to entertain any sale trlnsaclions.

¶39

Learnerl counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that before^lisl ing the said lands in the list of prohibitec properties, respondent^{No.2 has neither} issued notice to the pet'tioners nor preceeded t,v 1ny enquiry, therefore, the action on the part of the respondent N,r.2 in listing the subject property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Regis.-ration Act, 1908, (for srhcrt^'Act, 19O8J amounts to violation of p,rinciples of natural^justice -

¶40

Sri A. I)rabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appearing for the unofficial respondents vehemently contended that the petitioners are not having any piece of iand and the extent of land p:>ssessed by

¶41

. -.,i..-rr..jiil:i .f il&&X!i*;!:r., . -;;.;-

¶42

J

¶43

them has been disposed of in favour of the third parties, and by creating hctitious documents, the petitioners are submitting applications for registration in respect of the subject^property. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 has issued impugned proceedings in letter No.E3/ 1035-3 2l2o2l, dated 14.06.2022 after calling report from the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Offrcer for listing the property to an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.298 in the prohibitory list, and the procedure / adopted by respondent No.2 is in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder, and there is^no illegality or legal inhrmities warranting interference of the orders passed by respondent No.2.

¶44

\

¶45

A careful examination of the proceedings dated 14.06.2022 issued by respondent No.2 would reveal that no notice^whatsoever has been issued to the petitioners before listing the^{said property in} the prohibitory list and there are no adverse orders^{prohibiting the} subject property for registration or for transfer of the^{said property} in terms of the Standing Order No.21?- issued by the^Registration Department. It is settled law that so far as the^{private parties are} concerned, unless prohibitory orders are issued^{by the competent} Court and the requirements of Section 22-A of the Act, 1908^tias been satisfied for listing in the^{prohibitorylist, the Registering}

¶46

II

¶47

4

¶48

Authority or 1.he District Collector is not having an1 right or authority to list the properties in prohibitory list. Horve ver, while passing the imprugneri order for listing the subject property in the prohibitory properties list, respondent No.2 has not exa;nined the said aspects i rd no notice has been issued to ihe petitioners, and therefore, the irnpugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶49

In vierv of the above, this Court is of the opinion that ends of

¶50

justice '"vould be met if respondent No.2-the District C,:rllector is directed to exarnine the claim of the petitioners as rvr:Il as the unofficia,l respondents after issuing notices and pass appropriate orders in acccrdance rvith law.

¶51

With the eLbove observations, this writ petition is di:;posed of.

¶52

No order as to oosts.

¶53

As a se,fuel, the miscellaneous petitions pendin g, if any, shall stald r:losed.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/..T. JAYASREE ^^{DEPUTY REGISTRAR} N

¶56

To [";"r,'b,.i.'**

¶57

1. The Princi pal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sec retariat Hyderabad, State of Telangana

¶58

\

¶59

2c the District Collector, Suryapet District.

¶60

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, SurvaDet District.

¶61

4 The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub - Regidtrir, Sury5pet, Suryapet District. 5 The S-u^b-Reg]stra r, S u ryapet, S urya pet Distrilt' 6 One CC to SRI RAMAKRiSHNA.K, Advocate IOPUCI

¶62