Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1398 (TS)

Ravinder Textiles v. State Of Telanagana

2025-11-06

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER: ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “…to issue writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of second respondent in conforming the order of 4 th respondent by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide appeal No.9/2020 dated 21.9.2020 and conforming the refusal orders of 4 th respondent vide No.1/2020 Dated 8.2.2020 and direct the 4 th respondent to release document in P.No.2/2020 by setting aside the orders of 2nd and 4th respondents and to pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Mr. Rudresh Despandey, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms.Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Bank and Mr.J.Sunitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent No.6. 3. It is the specific case of petitioner that he purchased Plot No.23 admeasuring 1,200 Square yards along with Industrial shed of plinth area 1,886 square feet located in Sy.No.555/1 of Baddenapalli Village, Textile Park, Sircilla from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Sircilla Branch through E-auction. Petitioner emerged as successful bidder and the said property came to be registered vide sale deed No.984 of 2016 by virtue of which petitioner become the absolute owner. A copy of the schedule of the property is annexed as document to the writ paper P5 (Pg.No.59). 4. It is observed that the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Sircilla Branch, conducted auction of plot as M/s.Jyostna Textiles, Baddenapelly, represented by its proprietor, Smt. Vasam Umadevi, had defaulted payment of amounts due to the Bank. 5. P6 is the sale deed dated 24.08.2007. The contents of the sale deed reflect that the Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles and the Development Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P., Hyderabad, executed the sale deed in favour of M/s. Jyostna Textiles, Baddenapelly, represented by its proprietor, Smt. Vasam Umadevi. 6. It is pertinent to note that Clause 7 of the sale deed specifically stipulates that the land allotted to the party (purchased) pursuant to the application shall be utilized “for the purpose of power loom weaving and allied activities only”. This condition in the sale deed reflects that a purchaser in an auction has to abide by the same. 6. It is pertinent to note that Clause 7 of the sale deed specifically stipulates that the land allotted to the party (purchased) pursuant to the application shall be utilized “for the purpose of power loom weaving and allied activities only”. This condition in the sale deed reflects that a purchaser in an auction has to abide by the same. It is the policy of the State Government to give a boost to the textile industry, specifically to those engaged in weaving activities. Pursuant to such a policy, the Textile Park was established at Sircilla for the benefit of individuals involved in the activity of weaving. Plots have been allotted accordingly to those persons involved in such activity. 7. Petitioner purchased the schedule property in an auction conducted by State Bank of Hyderabad. This is not in dispute. Petitioner entered into a sale deed on 17.01.2020. A copy of the sale deed is annexed as document (Pg.Nos.18 to 22). When the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the ground that the said property is included in the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 ( for short “the Act, 1908”) and classified as prohibitory property vide District Collector, Karimnagr bearing document No.E3/3545/2011, dated 05.06.2012. 8. A copy of the refusal order bearing No. 1 of 2020, issued by the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sircilla, dated 08.02.2020, is annexed as a document at page 15, and the intimation of refusal is at page 14 (P2). It is this refusal that is under challenge before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject property was sold in favour of M/s.Jyostna Textiles vide sale deed dated 24.08.2007 by the Commissioner of Handlooms. It is further submitted that M/s. Jyostna Textiles, the borrower of a term loan offered by the State Bank of Hyderabad (Pg.No.65), defaulted in repayment and consequently, the State Bank of Hyderabad put the subject property to auction. Upon confirmation of sale, a sale certificate was issued in favour of petitioner (Pg. No. 64). It is further submitted that petitioner entered into a contract for sale of the subject property vide sale deed, dated 17.01.2020. When the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar refused registration. 10. Upon confirmation of sale, a sale certificate was issued in favour of petitioner (Pg. No. 64). It is further submitted that petitioner entered into a contract for sale of the subject property vide sale deed, dated 17.01.2020. When the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar refused registration. 10. Be that as it may, this Court observes that learned counsel has addressed compliance with Clause 7 of the sale deed dated 24.08.2007, which was executed in favour of M/s. Jyostna Textiles. Clause 7 of the sale deed is as follows: “That the commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles A.P.Hyderabad has agreed to Sell/allot the land in favour of the party in pursuance of their application dated 05.06.2001 and that the plot in the Textile Park, area is to be utilized for the purpose of POWERLOOM WEAVING AND ALLIED ACTIVITY ONLY. The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles; A.P. Hyderabad, represented, by park Administrator Textile Park, Sircilla has agreed to convey the party.” 11. On perusal of the said clause, it is inferred that the plot in the Textile Park is to be utilized solely for the purpose of power loom weaving and allied activities only. Further, Clause 8, reads as follows: “ Which shall be utilized for the purpose of setting up of an industry for manufacturing of Textiles/related activity shall got be approved by the Handloom Textile Department and also such other competent authorities.” 12. It is evident that the said plot shall be utilized for setting up of an industry for manufacturing of Textiles or related activity by getting an approval from the Textile Department. 13. When this Court queried learned counsel whether the plot mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.01.2020 would be utilized for the purposes specified in Clauses 7 and 8 of the sale deed dated 24.08.2007, learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that the subject property shall be utilized for the purposes mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.08.2007, specifically Clauses 7 and 8 and assured this Court that the said plot shall be put to use only for such purposes. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit and submitted to the Court that it is averred in the paragraph that the said plot shall be utilized exclusively for textile business purposes. 14. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit and submitted to the Court that it is averred in the paragraph that the said plot shall be utilized exclusively for textile business purposes. 14. In view of Clauses 7 & 8 in the sale deed of 2007, and the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner (on instructions), this Court deems it appropriate that petitioner be permitted to make a representation to the District Collector, who shall consider the grievance of petitioner and take an appropriate decision regarding denotification of the property from the prohibited list in accordance with law. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for official respondents has placed on record instructions, dated 28.01.2021, the contents of which are as follows: “In connection to the subject and reference cited, I am herewith submitting my brief notes of W.P.No.1598 of 2021 for of perusal and filing of counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.4 Sri S. Kiran Kumar S/o Sarveshwarsia, Age: Years, Occ: Sub- Registrar, Sircilla Town and mandal of Rajanna Sireilla District as per the records available in the office. As per the recitals of the pending Document No.2 of 2020 the then Sub-Registrar has refused the document vide Refusal. No.01 of 2020 on Dated: 17.01.2020. The contents of the document is Sri Boda Ravinder s/o Yellaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o 12-10-71 Pragathinagar, sircilla town and mandal of Rajanna Sirciall District executed a SALE DEED in favour of Sri Raju Rajaiah Gajengi S/o Rajaiah, Age about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.225/1 GAjengi Niwas, A-wing, Flat.No.401, Kombadpad Road, Near Shivaji Chauk, Kasar Ali, Bhiwandi, Dist:Thane of bearing Sy.No.555/1 in Plot.No.23 to an extent of 1200.00 Sq.yds Situated at Baddenapalli village of Thangallapalli mandal pertaining to Tin Shed roof house with open place with 1886.00 Sq.fts. The then Sub-Registrar, sircilla has refused the document vide Refusal. No.1 of 2020 and recorded the reasons under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908 that, the said Sy.No.555/1 is noted in the prohibited Property list furnished by the Revenue Authorities vide District Collector, Karimnagar No.E3/3545/2011, Dated: 05.06.2012 and the same has been fed into the Prohibited Property List of CCA. The District Registrar, Karimnagar informed and passed an appeal vide Appellate Authority under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908 and District Registrar, Karimnagar Appeal. The District Registrar, Karimnagar informed and passed an appeal vide Appellate Authority under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908 and District Registrar, Karimnagar Appeal. No.09/2020, Dated:21.09.2020 wherein the executant Sri B.Ravinder R/o Sircilla submitted an appeal U/s 72 of Registration Act, 1908 on 04.03.2020 that in delete the said survey number from the prohibited properties list and direct the sub- Registrar, sircilla to admit the document to registration and the same has been rejected by the District Registrar, Karimnagar. As per the instructions issued by the Commissioner & Inspector General of (R&S), TS. Hyderabad videMemo.No.G1/1075/2016, Dated: 17.06.2016 and Circular Memo.No.G1/19131/2005, dated:14.09.2007 and Government of Telangana Go.Ms.No.121 Revenue (Registration-1) Department, Dated:01.06.2016 Rule 238 to 243 any addition/deletion/modification to the list of prohibited properties is to be made by the Collector who intern address the Commissioner & Inspector General of (R&S), Hyderabad for such addition/deletion/modification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 .” 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that, if petitioner makes a representation, the same shall be considered in the light of the undertaking given by petitioner. Learned counsel has placed another set of instructions, dated 02.09.2025. The contents of which are as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that, the above Writ petition is filed by the petitioners in the above Writ Petition i.e., M./s. Ravinder Textiles, Baddenapalli Sircilla Represented by proprietor Sri Boda Ravinder S/o. Yellaiah, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-10-71, Pragathinagar, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District to declare that the action of the Respondent No.4 in refusing document with refusal number 1/2020 presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the admeasuring an area of 1200.00 Square Yards along with shed of 1886 sq.fts in Sy.No.555/1 with plot No.23 situated at Textile Park, Baddenapelli Village, Thangallapelly Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla Mandal. It is respectfully submitted that, The petitioner purchased property through the registered document number 984/2016 executed by M/s.Jyostna Textiles Represented by Smt. Vasam UmaDevi in favour of M/s. Ravinder Textiles represented by Boda Ravinder. It is respectfully submitted that, The petitioner purchased property through the registered document number 984/2016 executed by M/s.Jyostna Textiles Represented by Smt. Vasam UmaDevi in favour of M/s. Ravinder Textiles represented by Boda Ravinder. And he intended to sale the property he purchased in Survey number 555/1 with plot no.23 to an extent of 1200 sq.yds along with shed plinth area of 1886 Sq.fts situated at Textile Park, Baddenapelli Village, Thangallapelli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District but the regarding the Survey Number 555/1 of Baddenapelli Village, Thanggallapally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District has been fed into the Prohibited Property list under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908 for Registration as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble District Collector, Karimnagar vide Lr.No.E3/3545/2011, Dated: 05.06.2012. Therefore, Sub Registrar, Sircilla refused to register the document executed by the Petitioners in the Writ petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The property alienated is exhibiting in the list furnished under section 22-A, the document will be refused to Registration and the same refused with refusal number 1/2020.” 17. This Court, having perused both the written instructions, does not find much of difference in contents in the two written instructions. 18. Be that as it may, as the petitioner, through his counsel, has undertaken to utilize the said plot solely for the purposes mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.08.2007, specifically reflected in Clauses 7 and 8, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Office of the District Collector to consider the representation of petitioner for denotifying the property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908. Needless to state that the purchaser of the property shall give an undertaking by way of an affidavit to abide by the Clauses 7 & 8. It is made clear that the purchaser shall abide by the undertaking given to the Office of the District Collector, if there is any violation of the undertaking given by purchaser, the District Collector is at liberty to initiate proceedings through the Office of the Commissioner of Textiles. A copy of the undertaking shall also be given in the office of Commissioner of Textiles. 19. A copy of the undertaking shall also be given in the office of Commissioner of Textiles. 19. Petitioner is permitted to make a representation with all relevant details and copies of undertaking to the Office of the District Collector and to the Office of the Commissioner of Textiles. Upon such representation, the District Collector shall consider denotifying the property in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks. Once denotified the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 20. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.