ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief : “..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings No.El/D1/1117/2024, dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3 rd Respondent where under the Pattadar Pass Books-cum-title deeds were cancelled with a further direction to the 5 th Respondent to resume the petitioners land in Survey No.936/2, an extent of Ac.2-00 gts., in Survey No.937/2 an extent of Ac.3-03 gts., and in Survey No.942 an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., situated at Jawaharnagar village, Kapra Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions as contained in Sec.8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 as well as Sec.166-B of Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and also in gross violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 08.06.1972 in W.P.No.3708 of 1970, orders dated 10.07.1984 in W.P.No.5097 of 1979, orders dated 10.07.1984 passed in W.P.No.19184 of 2009 and also in gross violation of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue dt.12.07.1986 and also against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Constitutional Courts and consequently to set aside the Proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024, dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent...”. 2. Heard Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.R.Snehitha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Assignment Sri DV Chalapathi Rao. 3. The petitioners seek judicial intervention against Proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024 dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent, whereby their pattadar passbooks-cum-title deeds pertaining to survey Nos.936/2 (Ac.2.00 gts.), 937 (Ac.3.03 gts.), 938 (Ac.3.10 gts.) and 942/2 (Ac.5.00 gts.) situated at Jawaharnagar village were cancelled. 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that Late C.Narsimha, an ex-serviceman, was allotted Ac.16.37 guntas of land in survey Nos.936, 937, 938 and 942 (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”) by the Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Society for Ex-Servicemen through a resolution dated 09.11.1966. The land had been taken over from the Military Estate Officer on 23.07.1951 for rehabilitation of ex-army personnel and subsequently, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 23.10.1952, the same was allotted to the Labour Department for rehabilitation purposes. The land had been taken over from the Military Estate Officer on 23.07.1951 for rehabilitation of ex-army personnel and subsequently, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 23.10.1952, the same was allotted to the Labour Department for rehabilitation purposes. The area, initially known as the anti-tank range, was later renamed “Jawahar Nagar.” (a) Assignments to ex-servicemen were governed by G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963, prescribing a non-alienation period of ten years, subsequently relaxed by G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, permitting sale after ten years without Government permission. The subject land was later included in the prohibited list under G.O.Ms.No.786 of 1999. (b) Late C.Narsimha expired on 30.08.2002. Subsequently, his legal heirs viz.Krishna Swamy (father of respondent No.1) and respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed W.P.No.19184 of 2009, resulting in this Court directing verification of legal heirship on 04.12.2023. Pattadar passbooks were thereafter issued in their favour. (c) The petitioners subsequently filed a representation dated 14.05.2024 seeking deletion of the subject land from the prohibited list. Notwithstanding the petitioners’ detailed reply dated 01.03.2025, the 3 rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the pattadar passbooks without granting a personal hearing, allegedly under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (hereinafter “ROR Act, 2020”) read with Section 166-B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserting that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory provisions and contrary to constitutional guarantees and seeking restoration of their entries in Dharani and other revenue records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land was lawfully allotted to late C.Narsimha and has been continuously possessed and cultivated by the petitioners since 1966, corroborated by revenue receipts, electricity bills, society records, earlier passbooks and administrative recognition vide CLR’s Lr.No.BB1/1465/86 dated 12.07.1986. (a) Judicial protection of possession was granted in W.P.Nos.3707 & 3708 of 1970 and W.P.No.5097 of 1979, with subsequent verification and issuance of pattadar passbooks in W.P.No.19184 of 2009. Inclusion of the land in the prohibited list under G.O.Ms.No.786 of 1999 is contrary to law and binding judicial precedents, including BHEL Employees Model M.A.C.H.B.S. Ltd. Vs. State of Telangana , 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3640 and Ande Narasimha Rao Vs. State of A.P. , 2013 (3) ALT 500 . Inclusion of the land in the prohibited list under G.O.Ms.No.786 of 1999 is contrary to law and binding judicial precedents, including BHEL Employees Model M.A.C.H.B.S. Ltd. Vs. State of Telangana , 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3640 and Ande Narasimha Rao Vs. State of A.P. , 2013 (3) ALT 500 . (b) Section 8 of the ROR Act, 2020 applies solely to fraudulent passbooks issued in respect of Government land. The petitioners’ title is traceable to a valid allotment repeatedly upheld by judicial orders and administrative verifications. The impugned proceedings were issued in violation of principles of natural justice, as no personal hearing was granted. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, reiterating the contents of the counter, filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, as the impugned proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024 dated 26.05.2025 were issued strictly in accordance with law upon verification of revenue records, which clearly establish that the subject land continues to be Government land and that pattadar passbooks were erroneously and fraudulently generated in Dharani portal without any valid assignment. The petitioners’ reliance on the alleged status of late C.Narsimha as an Ex-Serviceman and on unverified “allotments” said to have been made by a Co-operative Society is misconceived, since no Government assignment patta or original file exists in his favour, nor does his name appear in any authorised assignment register. The writ orders cited by the petitioners merely protected membership within the Society and did not confer title or direct Government assignment and mere possession, however long, cannot create rights over Government property. The petitioners’ assertion that the land should be excluded from the prohibited list is untenable, as the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.743 of 1963 or G.O.Ms.No.1117 of 1993 apply only to valid assignees, which the petitioners’ predecessor in title is not rightful claimant. Contrary to their claim, notices were duly issued, their written submissions were considered and personal hearing is not mandatory. The impugned order was passed after due process and the petitioners are attempting to perpetuate unlawful occupation of Government land based on unverifiable Society documents and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Contrary to their claim, notices were duly issued, their written submissions were considered and personal hearing is not mandatory. The impugned order was passed after due process and the petitioners are attempting to perpetuate unlawful occupation of Government land based on unverifiable Society documents and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, the statutory framework and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that although Section 8 of the ROR Act, 2020 empowers the District Collector to cancel pattadar passbooks obtained fraudulently in respect of Government land, such power can be exercised only upon proof of fraud or procedural illegality. 9. The record unequivocally establishes that the possession and entitlement of the petitioners’ predecessors were judicially recognized in W.P.Nos.3708 of 1970, 5097 of 1979 and 19184 of 2009. Pursuant to judicial directions, legal heirship was duly verified and pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioners, which, under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 2020, constitute prima facie evidence of title. The principles enunciated in Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs. Fakhrul Hassan , (1976) 3 SCC 642 and Partap Singh Vs. Shiv Ram , (2020) 11 SCC 242 affirm that revenue entries carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent proof of fraud or illegality. No such material has been placed on record in the present case. 10. For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, the relevant paragraph in Vishwa Vijay Bharati (3 rd supra) is reproduced hereunder : “14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate enquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to the genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.” 11. Likewise, the relevant paragraphs in Partap Singh Vs. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.” 11. Likewise, the relevant paragraphs in Partap Singh Vs. Shiv Ram (4 th supra ) is reproduced hereunder : “20…… The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can only be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.” 12. The record reveals that the matter was earlier carried in appeal before the competent appellate authority, namely the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who, by order dated 12.07.1986, confirmed the rights of petitioners in W.P.No.5097 of 1979, including late C.Narasimha, who is the father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the grandfather of petitioner No.1 and the father-in-law of petitioner No.2 herein. Pursuant to and in implementation of the said appellate order, pattadar passbooks were duly issued in favour of the petitioners as the legal heirs of late C.Narasimha. Inasmuch as the issue had attained finality upon adjudication by a competent quasi-judicial authority, after considering the orders passed by the District Collector, the subsequent action of the District Collector in cancelling the pattadar passbooks of the petitioners and directing the 5 th respondent to resume the subject land is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Such action amounts to a gross violation and abuse of the binding judicial and quasi-judicial orders of the final adjudicating authority and is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 and Section 166-B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. 13. The impugned proceedings disregard binding judicial orders, long-standing administrative recognition and the principles of natural justice. The impugned action suffers from arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. The doctrine against approbation and reprobation, as reiterated in Union of India and others Vs. N.Murugesan and others , (2022) 2 SCC 25 , squarely applies. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scott’s law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold.” 14. In Union of India and another Vs. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scott’s law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold.” 14. In Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Company and another, (2003) 5 SCC 437 the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.16 observed as under : “16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary and every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary”. 15. The attempt by the official respondents to question the allotment made in favour of the petitioners’ father after an unexplained lapse of nearly five decades is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable. The allotment, possession and entitlement had been repeatedly examined, affirmed and acted upon by this Court and by the revenue authorities themselves through verification and issuance of pattadar passbooks. The impugned notice constitutes a collateral challenge to binding judicial orders that have attained finality and is therefore barred by the principles of res judicata and finality of litigation. In the absence of any established fraud, invocation of Section 8 of the ROR Act, 2020 to unsettle settled rights is wholly unjustified. 16. This Court further notes that Late C.Narsimha acquired rights over the subject land pursuant to a lawful allotment made in 1966 by the Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Society for Ex-Servicemen, in furtherance of Government policy under G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 23.10.1952. The allotment conferred a legally cognizable right to possession and enjoyment, consistently recognized through revenue records, administrative correspondence and repeated judicial orders. The initial non-alienation condition under G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 merely regulated transfer and did not affect the validity of the allotment or possession. Upon expiry of the stipulated period and in view of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, the restriction stood relaxed, enlarging the incidents of ownership. 17. During his lifetime, Late C.Narsimha’s entitlement was repeatedly verified and affirmed, resulting in a settled and heritable interest. Upon his demise on 30.08.2002, these rights lawfully devolved upon his legal heirs pursuant to judicially directed verification. Upon expiry of the stipulated period and in view of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, the restriction stood relaxed, enlarging the incidents of ownership. 17. During his lifetime, Late C.Narsimha’s entitlement was repeatedly verified and affirmed, resulting in a settled and heritable interest. Upon his demise on 30.08.2002, these rights lawfully devolved upon his legal heirs pursuant to judicially directed verification. The statutory limitations governing assigned lands do not empower the State to retrospectively annul a lawful allotment in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or breach of conditions. 18. The impugned action, initiated after nearly five decades of uninterrupted possession and official recognition, suffers from gross and unexplained delay. Even where no specific period of limitation is prescribed, statutory and administrative powers affecting civil and property rights must be exercised within a reasonable time. A belated reopening of settled issues is barred by the doctrines of limitation, laches, acquiescence and finality and amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. Prolonged State acquiescence defeats equity and reflects abuse of discretionary power. 19. In H.Guruswamy and others Vs. A.Krishnaiah since deceased by LRs , (2025) SCC OnLine SC 54 , with regard to limitation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.17, observed as under : “17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No Court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the litigant for an indefinite period of time.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that settled proprietary rights acquire finality and a belated or unexplained reopening of such rights by administrative authorities amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. These principles squarely apply to the present case, where the petitioners’ rights, based on lawful allotment, long-standing possession and judicially verified heirship, have been repeatedly recognized and cannot be unsettle without due process and evidence of fraud. 21. Admittedly, the State retains regulatory control over the lands allotted under welfare or institutional schemes, however, such power is not unfettered. These principles squarely apply to the present case, where the petitioners’ rights, based on lawful allotment, long-standing possession and judicially verified heirship, have been repeatedly recognized and cannot be unsettle without due process and evidence of fraud. 21. Admittedly, the State retains regulatory control over the lands allotted under welfare or institutional schemes, however, such power is not unfettered. Once an allotment is lawfully made and acted upon and the beneficiary has enjoyed possession with official recognition for a substantial period, the State cannot nullify the allotment merely upon a reappraisal of records or a change of opinion. Any cancellation or resumption must be founded on clear statutory authority, a demonstrable breach of the conditions of allotment and strict adherence to procedural safeguards. 22. Recently, the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in V.Chenchaiah Naidu Vs. The State of AP (In Writ Appeal No.753 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025) observed as under : “The objective of assigning land to ex-servicemen is a measure of demonstrating the gratitude of the nation to persons defending its borders and people. It is also in a manner, an incentive for volunteers who serve, in the Armed Forces of India. Such an objective, cannot be whittled down by, bureaucratic procedure….” 23. The allotment of land to freedom fighters and ex-servicemen is a welfare measure rooted in State policy and constitutional values of rehabilitation and social justice and not a mere act of largesse. Such allotments, when made pursuant to Government policy and acted upon for decades, create vested and heritable rights subject only to the conditions imposed at the time of grant. The non- alienation conditions under G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 were regulatory and upon their relaxation under G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, the allottee’s rights stood enlarged. In the absence of fraud or violation of conditions, the State cannot, after long acquiescence and repeated judicial and administrative recognition, reopen or nullify such welfare allotments, as doing so would defeat the very object of the scheme and amount to arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. 24. The erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. 24. The erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Ananthapur District and another , 1999 SCC OnLine AP 637 with regard to the power of resumption of assigned lands observed as under : “….the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned…” 25. When the facts of the case on hand are tested on the settled proposition of law laid down in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024 dated 26.05.2025 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The respondents have failed to establish any fraud, misrepresentation or statutory violation so as to invoke the power under Section 8 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020. On the contrary, the record demonstrates long- standing possession, repeated administrative recognition and binding judicial affirmations in favour of the petitioners and their predecessor- in-interest, which have attained finality. The belated cancellation of pattadar passbooks, without adherence to principles of natural justice and in disregard of settled rights, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property and violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The impugned action is also vitiated by gross delay, acquiescence and an impermissible collateral challenge to final judicial orders. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Proceedings No.E1/D1/1117/2024 dated 26.05.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioners’ names in Dharani and all connected revenue records forthwith. The interim order of status quo dated 27.06.2025 shall stand merged with this final order. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.