Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1472 (TS)

Mudigonda Satyanarayana v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V. Venugopal, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, to- A. Declare that the continued prohibition and reference to CCLA approval, as contained in the impugned Proceeding No.D1/F1/4676/2025, dated 29.10.2025, issued by Respondent No.3 -the District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir, are illegal, arbitrary, Honorable, and in contravention of binding Government policy and the judicial pronouncements of this Honorable Court in W.P.No.46133 of 2018, W.P.No.27301 of 2024, and W.P.No.40365 of 2022, which have categorically held that such prohibitions are unsustainable once ten years have elapsed without dispute B. Declare that the impugned Proceeding No.D1/F1/4676/2025 dated 29.10.2025, issued by Respondent No.3 the District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir, is illegal, arbitrary, and colourable insofar as it contains a self-assessed and inflated market valuation of Rs.18,00,000/- per acre, which is contrary to the notified Government market value of Rs.19,00,000/- per acre, and consequently direct the Respondents to rectify and adopt the correct Government guideline value in all related proceedings; C. Direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith delete the Petitioners land from the Prohibited Properties List maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and permit registration of the same in accordance with law D. Direct the Respondents to pay suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the mental agony, harassment, and loss caused due to their deliberate delay, arbitrary conduct, and administrative inaction, despite favourable ground-level reports from the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in 2013 and 2014 and E. Pass...” 2. Heard Sri Mohammad Imtiyaz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the peaceful possessor of land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.28/3, situated at Hanumapur Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, which was assigned in the Ex-servicemen quota and his name was also recorded in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued pattedar passbook vide Passbook No.T30050020136, dated 21.04.2018. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21047 of 2025 before this Court seeking deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21047 of 2025 before this Court seeking deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. This Court vide its order dated 22.07.2025 disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an online application to the District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Online Application enclosing all relevant documents vide No.2500088655, dated 29.07.2025 through Bhu-Bharati Portal and requested deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. Despite the clear judicial direction, respondent No.3 failed to act upon the application submitted by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the wilful and persistent inaction of respondent No.3, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Case No.2879 of 2025, which is pending before this Court for adjudication for non compliance of the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.21047 of 2025. Subsequent to filing of the said contempt case, respondent No.3 issued a pre-dated notice dated 08.10.2025 (received by the petitioner on 11.10.2025), followed by another notice dated 25.10.2025 both issued only after contempt proceedings commenced. These actions are colourable exercise of power to create a facade of complaince. The petitioner through his counsel submitted a detailed representation dated 25.10.2025 protesting such pot-facto and malafide action. Respondent No.3 issued impugned proceedings No.D1/F1/4676/2025, dated 29.10.2025 stating that the proposals have been sent to respondent No.2 –The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) for issuance of an NOC, which is nothing but a mechanical and perfunctory Act. 5. The jurisdiction offered by respondent No.3 that “approval from CCLA is awaited” is wholly untenable in law, as G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, expressly dispenses with the requirement of NOC for Ex-servicemen lands after 10 years of assignment where no dispute exists. But in the present case more than 30 years have elapsed since assignment, and all filed-leval authorities including the Tahsildar and RDO, have submitted favourable reports. Hence, the continued prohibition and repeated reference to CCLA approval are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to binding Government Policy and to judicial pronouncements of this Court in W.P.No.46133 of 2018, 27301 of 2024, 40365 of 2022, which have categorically held that such prohibitions are unsustainable once ten years have elapsed without dispute. Hence, the continued prohibition and repeated reference to CCLA approval are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to binding Government Policy and to judicial pronouncements of this Court in W.P.No.46133 of 2018, 27301 of 2024, 40365 of 2022, which have categorically held that such prohibitions are unsustainable once ten years have elapsed without dispute. The respondents insistence of adopting an inflated and arbitrary market valuation of Rs.18,00,000/- per acre in complete disregard of the official guidelines value of Rs.9,00,000/- per acre is ex facie illegal, malafide and contrary to the revenue records. Such an inflation valutation has no legal or factual basis, amounts to a colouraboe exercise of power and reflects abuse of administrative discretion. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.279 Revenue (Assn.l) dated 04-07-2016 and the relevant portion is as under: “6. Accordingly, Government after careful examination of the matter, issued the following orders in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.307 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 06-06-2013:-- (i) The procedure of issuing ‘NOC’ shall be dispensed with. There shall be no need for obtaining ‘NOC’ in all cases of assignment of Ex-Servicemen and Freedom Fighters in which a period of ten years has expired and there is no dispute on the land with the Government. (ii) All such cases without dispute shall be deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and furnished to the Registration Department. (iii) In respect of cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure U/s 22-A. The Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute. 7. The Spl. C.S. & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collectors shall take further necessary action accordingly in the matter.” 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the case of the petitioner is forwarded to CCLA as per G.O.Ms.No.307 and the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21047 of 2025, for filing Online Application and the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2025 has been issued basing on the factual aspect. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the case of the petitioner is forwarded to CCLA as per G.O.Ms.No.307 and the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21047 of 2025, for filing Online Application and the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2025 has been issued basing on the factual aspect. Hence, the petitioner seeking to set aside impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2025 vide No.D1/F1/4676/2025 does not hold any merit. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, the petitioner has not enclosed any online application as directed by this Court in W.P.No.21047 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025. Secondly, the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2025 vide No.D1/F1/4676/2025 has been issued only on 29.10.2025, after the contempt case has been filed by the petitioner and the petitioner’s prayer to set aside the impugned proceeding does not yield any result. 9. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.