Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 513 (TS)

Thelukala Venkat Reddy v. State Of Telangana

2025-04-30

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2025
ORDER : C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 and their staff in threatening, interfering and dispossessing the petitioner on 19.04.2025, to help the big software companies, as the houses looking inconvenience to IT HUB with the petitioner’s Houses bearing 10-1/158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards on Plot No.158 in Sy.No.100 and 109, situated at Kokapet Village, GandipetMandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing any notice and following due process of law, inspite of showing the registered sale deeds, property tax receipts, house hold patta certificates, etc., as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs. 2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the House bearing No.10-1/158, admeasuring 250 sq. yards on Plot No.158 in Sy.Nos.100 and 109, situated at Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that initially, the said plot was assigned as house site Patta in favour of one M. Anil Kumar through House Hold Patta Certificate vide PattaNo.D/428/2008, by the Special Deputy Collector cum RDO, Ranga Reddy District and he has constructed two rooms therein and used to pay the tax to the concerned Municipality. It is further stated that M. Anil Kumar alienated the said house in favour of the vendors of the petitioner and the vendors had also obtained construction permission for the same vide Permit No.359564/NRSG/0002/2024, dated 18.01.2024. It is further stated that the vendors, after constructing a house, have alienated the said house in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deeds vide Nos.12113 and 12114 of 2024, dated 27.04.2024 and since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said house is also assessed for property tax. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are frequently interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the subject property claiming that the said property is prohibited for transfer as per the assignment conditions, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property as the same is not prohibited in terms of the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act, 1977’) nor the said property is listed as prohibited properties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property as the same is not prohibited in terms of the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act, 1977’) nor the said property is listed as prohibited properties. He further contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property by paying valid sale consideration with a bonafide impression that there is no restriction to purchase the said property and the respondents having allowed for registration contrary to Section 5(2) of the Act, 1977 are not having any power or authority to claim that the subject property purchased under registered sale deeds is prohibited for alienation and the petitioner is not entitled to purchase the same. He further contended that the local authorities also granted building permission by verifying all the documents and if the authorities, prohibited to entertain sale deeds at the initial stage, the petitioner would not have suffered and because of the act of the officials of the State Government in entertaining the registrations and granting building permissions, the petitioner cannot be put to loss the property on the ground that the subject land is assigned land. He further stated that if at all if there is any violation of the assignment conditions, it is on the part of the Sub-Registrar, who entertained the sale deeds and the officers who granted the permission to construct the house are responsible for the misdeeds on their part and the petitioner being the bonafide purchaser cannot be put to suffer and the State is vicariously liable for the act of malfeasance and misfeasance by its officials and the respondents are not having any right to invoke any provisions of law for resumption of the lands in possession of the petitioner, without following due process of law. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the house site patta assigned to the vendor of the petitioner is under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the R.R.Act, 2013’) and therefore, the conditions if any, imposed would not apply to the assignment patta granted to the vendor of the petitioner in terms of the assignment policy enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 or the provisions of the registrations specified in the Act, 9 of 1977. 6. 6. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised herein are required to be examined by the competent authority before initiating any action against the petitioner’s property. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issue notice and after considering the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner and taking into consideration of the house site patta assigned to the vendor of the petitioner under the R.R.Act, 2013 and following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291] and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya And Another vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others , [Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024] before initiating any action against the petitioner, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till then, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners, except in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.