Disposed

Asra Sultana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/3475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging blocking of Dharani portal transactions on the petitioner's agricultural patta land, wrongly listed as prohibited due to a court stay order in a suit to which she was not a party. The Court directed respondents to examine her deletion application and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application dated 30.12.2024 to be examined; property to be deleted from prohibited list if not covered by prohibitory orders, else reasoned order passed, within eight weeks.

Asra Sultana Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO i 3475 OF 2025

¶8

Asra Sultana, Wo. T.Moinuoddin, ag_ed 45 years, Occ_ Agriculture, R/o.H.No.6-B-75/9. Viswamber cotohy."cJnoni rria"gar, randur, Vikarabad Distrct

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 . The State of rerangana, Rep. by its principar Secretary(Revenue) secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The District Collector, Vikarabad District

¶13

The Revenue Divisionar officer, Vikaiabad Revenue Division vikarabad

¶14

The Tahsildar,^peddemul Mandal, Vit<araOlO bistrict

¶15

The Sub-Registrar, Tandur, Vikarabad Oisiricf

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia trrtifrtil:i''fll: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the respondents in not allowing any sale transaction on Dharani portar pertaining to the petitioner agriculture patta land to an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas in sy.No. 179IAA/2A situated at Kandanelli village, Peddemur mandar, vikarabad District is iilegar, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and consequenily directing the respondent No. 4 to aflow further transactions in Dharani portar pertaining to the petitioner agricurture patta rand to an extent of admeasuring Ac.o.29 guntas in sy.No. 17gtAN2A situated at Kandanefii viilage, peddemur mandal, Vikarabad District

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directing the respondent No. 4 to allow all transactions pertaining to the petitioner agriculture patta land to an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas in Sy.No. 179/AA/2A situated

¶19

at Kandanelli village, Peddemul^{mandal,Vikarabad Dis;trict forlhwithwithout} reference to the prohib ted list of Sth respondent ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.^{PHANI KUMAR} Counsel for Respondernts:^{AGP FOR REVENUE} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3 475 of 2o24

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

' This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶24

India, is filed seeking the following reliel

¶25

"...fo issue an appropidte t[it, order or directton more parhcularlg one in the nature oJ^,Wit of Certiorqri':

¶26

t) Declanng the action of respondents in not allotting anA sale tra nsaction on Dharani portal pertatning to the petitionei agiattture patta Land to an extent of Ac.0.29 gts. in SA.No.'179/ AA/ 2A stttt',ted ttt Kandanelli Village, peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad_ Distict, 6.s. illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law; ond

¶27

ii) Consequentlg, dtrect respond_ent No.4 to allout Jurther transactions tn Dharani Porto_l pertaining to the petitioner agiculture patta land. or poss appropiate order... "

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner is owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.29 gts, in Sy.No. 179 lAAl2A, situated at Kandanelli Village, peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District, having purchased thd same under registered sale deed dated 23.O3.2018 bearing document No.g44/201g. It is further stated that the petitioner intended to sell the subject property to third parties and in that process, approached the respondent No.4 on 22.12.2024 for registration of the subject property in Dharani Portal. It is stated that on the enquiry she came to know that the subject property is listed as prohibited

¶29

<br>

¶30

¶31

property on the ground that the same^{is covered by tLLe covered} by Court Stay'^,rrders'. It is further^{stated that Mr.Ali :lhareef,} Mr.Mohamme<l^'laher and others^{have hled'Suit} 'ride^O.Sr'No143 of 2019 on the file of^the Junior^{CivilJudge, 'l'anclr-rr,seeking} perpetual injtLltction in respect of land^{admerlsuring Ac 1 13} gts., in Sy.No:; 1'79 lA,¹⁷⁹ I^{AA2, 186/A,I87} I^A1'1a7 ,⁸⁷ lA3 and. L87 lA2, situated at^{Kandaneili Village, Peddemul Mandal,} Vikarabad Dis;trict, out of^{the total extent of Ac:s.S' 12 r3ts lt is} the further stated that^{the petitioneris not a p'arty to the. said} suit and the subject^{propertyis no way connected to the suit} schedule prop€rty.^{The grievance of the petitionc:r is tha' though} she has subrr i[ted an^{application on 30.12 -2O2'ithrc'utrh online} requesting to u:nblock^{the subject propertyand} 'lespite^receiving the said application,^{respondent-authorities are not a'cting upon} the same for deleting^{the subject property liom th: list of} prohibited prol)erties. Hence^{the writ petition.}

¶32

[rarne<i counsel^{for the petitionerveherrLently contended} that thoughⁱ L is^{apparentfrom the record r'hat [ht: subject} property owrrod by the^{petitioner is no way connec ted with} O.S.No.143 'tf 2079,^{wherein learned Junior Civi. Judge,} Tandur, grant,:d interim^{injunctionin respect of the land t:o an} extent of Ac. - 13 gts and^{though the petitione:'s land,; are not} / /

¶33

¶34

subject matter of the said injunction order, the respondentauthorities have erroneously included the petitioner,s property in the list of prohibited properties. It is further stated that in the absence of any specihc orders issued by the competent Court restraining the alienations, the respondents are not having any power or authority to block the propert5r of the petitioner in terms of Standing Order 2 19 of the Registration Standing Orders.

¶35

Per contra, Learned Assistant Government pleader. for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that as per sub_ section(4) of Section 22A of the Registration Act, the perscns aggrieved with the listing of properties in the prohibited properties list are entitled to make an application for deletion of the same before the Government and on filing such application, the same would be examined in accordance with the Rules in force.

¶36

¶37

5 Since it is stated that the petitioner has already submitted an application dated 30. 12.2024 through online, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to examine the application dated 30.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner dury tating into consideration of the

¶38

¶39

¶40

relevant docunents and if the subject property is not cc,vered by any proh ibitc 11, orders, the respondents shall delet,: I he same from the 1is1 of prohibited properties. -ln an1, evr:n t, if the petitioner is rLot entitled for the relief as sought for, res rondents shall pass a reasoned order, in accordancc t,ith [aw. and communicate the sairte to the petitioner. Thc entire exercise shall be comp eted within a period of eight (g) rvecks lrom the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶41

6 With th: above observations, this Writ petition is rlisposed

¶42

of.

¶43

Miscellarreous petitions, if any pending in tl.ris writ petition shall rs:and closed. No order aS to costs.

¶44

¶45

SD/-4. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'fil//, SECTIOMOFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The District Colrector, Vikarabad District

¶48

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Revenue Division \iikarabad

¶49

The Tahsildar, [)eddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶50

The Sub-Registrar, Tandur, Vikarabad District

¶51

One CC to Sri I\4 Phani Kumar Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP [:or Revenue ,Hlgh Court forthe State of Terlangana. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies

MBC LS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610212025

(- 1EL4
o
7
*
=$
il ;,1 $
sa
- ,1 q.1. i] t $(
ORDER

¶59

WP.No.3475 ol 2025

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶61

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

Asra Sultana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asra Sultana v. The 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

Chadive Sridhar Vs the State of Telangana

Baddam Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kalyani Kannaiah Mokkapati Vs The State of Telangana

E.B. Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Vadde Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Kanishk Gupta Vs State of Telangana