Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1782 (TS)

Rangineni Venkata Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-12-10

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings under Sections 8(1) to 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act, 1976), since repealed by Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the alleged consequential proceedings of respondent No.2 issued under Section 10(6) of the Act in File No. H/2770/2006 in the name of the dead person namely Hyder Ali Mirza in so far as declaring the petitioners’ agricultural lands total admeasuring 9,370 square yards (excluding internal roads) in Block No.2/Part, 3/Part, 4/Part, 5/Part and 6/Part in Survey Nos.491/A and 492 of Manchirevula Village and Grampanchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal (Gandipet), Rangareddy District as surplus land, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid 9,370 square yards of land. 2. Heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by a common order of this Court in W.P.Nos.16715 and 17160 of 2009 dated 21.04.2009 as well as the order of this Court in W.P.No.22114 of 2013, dated 20.02.2019. 4. It is submitted that one Hyder Ali Mirza was the original pattadar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.50-30 guntas situated in Survey Nos.477, 478, 483/A to E, 484/A, B & E, 485, 486/A, B & E, 487, 491/A, B & C and 492 of Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said Hyder Ali Mirza was granted certificate under Section 2 (o) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1976 (for short "the Act, 1976) by respondent No.2 vide proceedings bearing Dis.No.C5/107/82, dated 06.08.1982 granting exception from the provisions of the Act, 1976, since the said land is classified as agricultural land. The said Hyder Ali Mirza sold an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Survey No.491/A, Block.III, Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District to one Swastik Cooperative House Building Society under registered sale deed bearing document No.3238/1983 and the said Hyder Ali Mirza died on 08.06.1983. The said Hyder Ali Mirza sold an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Survey No.491/A, Block.III, Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District to one Swastik Cooperative House Building Society under registered sale deed bearing document No.3238/1983 and the said Hyder Ali Mirza died on 08.06.1983. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners purchased a land to an extent of 9,370 square yards through 18 registered documents from their vendors. The petitioners thereafter approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar requesting for mutation of land as well as for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in their favor. By that time, the entire land was converted into plotting, as such, the question of mutation does not arise and were advised to approach the competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioners' vendors by obtaining all necessary permissions, had constructed two blocks of apartments, in each block 10 flats and six individual houses, where they are also running old age homes. The petitioners approached Gram Panchayat and also paid property taxes. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 approached the premises of the petitioners and tried to disturb their possession. Questioning the said illegal action of respondent No.5, W.P.No.6481 of 2019 was filed, which was disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 27.03.2019, wherein the following order was passed: “This writ petition is accordingly allowed holding that the proceedings initiated by the authorities against the petitioner, being the successors-in-interest of late Hyder Ali Mirza, under the provisions of the Act of 1976 are not sustainable in law and that they are not entitled to or justified in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over her properties, pursuant, thereto.” 6. It is further submitted that the proceedings of respondent No.2 were vitiated by fraud on the statute apart from being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice for the reason that the original pattadar namely Hyder Ali Mirza died on 08.06.1983 itself, which is evident from the death certificate issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings without notice to anybody, and the subject lands belongs to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 under the guise of the impugned proceedings by issuing notice to a dead person, the petitioners' rights are infringed as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings without notice to anybody, and the subject lands belongs to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 under the guise of the impugned proceedings by issuing notice to a dead person, the petitioners' rights are infringed as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further submitted that proceedings of respondent No. 2 were made only to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners, which also includes an appointment of an Enquiry Officer to take possession under Section 10(6) of the Act. It is further submitted that the subject lands in Survey No.491/a and 492 of Manchirevula Village and Grampanchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal (Gandipet), Rangareddy District have not been taken and that the petitioners are very much in possession of the said lands since the date of their purchase. It is further submitted that since the Act is repealed, records were created by making a false claim to show that land is vested with the Government. As such, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 under Sections 8(1), 8(4), 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) in the name of a dead person, without issuing notice either to the petitioners or their vendors, who are the absolute owners and in actual possession of the subject lands, are void ab initio, illegal and gross violation of principles of natural justice. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this Court by a common order dated 21.04.2015 allowed the W.P.Nos.16715 and 17160 of 2009. It is further submitted that the two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner therein challenging the same impugned proceedings vide No.H/2770/2006 issued by respondent No.2 under Sections 8(1), 8(4), 9, 10(1) to 10(6) of the Act, 1976 in the name of dead person by name Hyder Ali Mirza in so far as declaring the agricultural land of the petitioner therein admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas as surplus land situated in Survey No.491 part of Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to the operative portion of the common order dated 21.04.2015 and the same is extracted for reference: “9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to the operative portion of the common order dated 21.04.2015 and the same is extracted for reference: “9. It is not clear from the averments made in the counter affidavit as to when for the first time the respondent authorities have recognized that the land is no more used for agricultural purpose and converted to non-agricultural purpose. There is no clarity on this issue. By the time the proceedings under the Act 1976 were commenced, Hyder Ali Mirza expired. The report of enquiry officer, dated 02.09.2006, discloses that names of the petitioners were reflected in the revenue records from the year 2002-03 onwards as pattadar. Thus, by the time proceedings under Section 8(3) of the Act 1976 commenced, the respondent authority was aware that the petitioners in possession and enjoyment and are treated as pattadars. Therefore, they were entitled to notice and opportunity before issuing final statement and before taking proceedings under Section 10 of the Act 1976. All these proceedings are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the petitioners were not put on notice and no opportunity of hearing was given to them before the finalization of proceedings under the Act 1976. 10.... 11. To take compulsory possession under Section 10(6) of the Act 1976, the persons who are in possession must be put on notice. Admittedly, by the time Section 10(6) of the Act 1976 proceedings commenced, the petitioners were in possession and they are treated as pattadars as per the revenue records, but the petitioners were not put on notice. The proceedings under various provisions of the Act 1976 were taken out treating Hyder Ali Mirza as owner, whereas by 1982 itself he sold several extents of land originally owned by him and ceased to be owner to the extent of land sold by him. Thus, by the time the Repealing Act came into force, the property has not vested in the State and, therefore, all the proceedings under the Act 1976 abate. 12. Thus, looking from any angle, the proceedings taken out by the respondent authorities under the Act 1976 are not sustainable and are, accordingly, set aside. 13. The Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.” 9. 12. Thus, looking from any angle, the proceedings taken out by the respondent authorities under the Act 1976 are not sustainable and are, accordingly, set aside. 13. The Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.” 9. Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention of this Court to W.P.No.22114 of 2013 stating that the said matter is a covered matter in W.P.Nos.16715 and 17160 of 2019, wherein the same impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are challenged and further draws attention to the operative portion of the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.22114 of 2013, and the same is extracted for reference: “The writ petition is accordingly allowed holding that the proceedings initiated by the authorities against the petitioners, being the successors-in-interest of late Hyder Ali Mirza, under the provisions of the Act of 1976 are not sustainable in law and that they are not entitled to or justified in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their properties, pursuant thereto.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention of this Court to the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.2816 & 17549 of 2020, stating that this is also a covered matter to W.P.Nos.16715 and 17160 of 2009, wherein the same impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are challenged and further draws attention of this Court to the operative portion of the order dated 10.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.2816 & 17549 of 2020 and the operative portion of the said order is extracted for reference: “8. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings, issued in respect of the land of the petitioner in W.P.No.17549 of 2010 admeasuring Ac.8.33 guntas in Sy.Nos.478, 483 Part and 485 Part of Manchirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal (erstwhile Rajendranagar Mandal), Rangareddy District and the land of the petitioner in WP.No.2816 of 2020 admeasuring Ac.3.17.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.491/A and 49 of Machirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal (erstwhile Rajendranagar Mandal), Rangareddy District, are set aside.” 11. Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention of this Court to the common order passed by this Court on 15.04.2025 in W.A.No.1371 of 2024 arising out of W.P.No.17160 of 2009 and W.A.No.1348 of 2024 arising out of W.P.No.16715 of 2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court recording the consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties while affirming the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge, as agreed, disposed of the writ appeals. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present writ petition also pertains to same survey numbers and seeks to pass similar orders. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment did not dispute to the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 14. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 under Section 10(6) of the Act in File No.H/2770/2006 in respect of the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.22888 of 2019 admeasuring 9,370 square yards (excluding internal roads) in Block No.2/Part, 3/Part, 4/Part, 5/Part and 6/Part in Survey Nos.491/a and 492 of Manchirevula Village & Gram Panchayat, Ranjendranagar Mandal (Gandipet), Rangareddy District are set aside. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.