Telangana High Court
Athinarapu Srinivas And Another vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.880 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. This appeal arises out of writ petition No.27818 of
2022 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners.
3. In the writ petition, the following prayer has been
made:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue an order or direction or writ one more
particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the Respondents in keeping our property plot
No. 473 (Eastern Part), admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds and 473
(Western Part), admeasuring 100 Sq Yds in Sy.No. 175,
176, 177, 178 and 179 total, 200 Sq.Yds at Sri Prabhupada
Township of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal,
RangaReddy District under prohibited list without
understanding the order of the Hon'ble Court in
I.A.No.194/2018 in O.S.No. 82/2018 is illegal, arbitrary
and violative of Article 14, 300A of the Constitution of the
India and contrary to the Registration Act, 1908 and also
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.880 of 2022
contrary to the circular memo No. 1/Gen.1/2010 Dated:
10.03.2010 and consequently direct the Respondents to
remove the property plot No. 473 (Eastern Part),
admeasuring 100 Sq.Yds and 473 (Western Part),
admeasuring 100 Sq.Yds, total 200 Sq.Yds in Sy.No. 175,
176, 177, 178 and 179 at Sri Prabhupada Township of
Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, RangaReddy
District from prohibited list to enable us to alienate the
same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice."
4. I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed by the appellants seeking
a direction to the respondents to remove the subject property
from the prohibited list by considering representation of the
appellants dated 10.06.2022 and 23.06.2022.
5. After hearing the matter, learned Single Judge
passed the following order on 20.09.2022:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that
though the petitioners are the owners of the plots bearing
Plot Nos.473 (Eastern Part) admeasuring 100 Square Yards,
and 473 (Western Part), admeasuring 100 Square Yards,
totally admeasuring 200 square yards, in Survey Nos.175,
176, 177, 178 and 179, situated at Sri Prabhupada
Township, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, the respondent authorities, without
taking into consideration the same, have put the subject
3 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.880 of 2022
plots in the prohibited properties list, under the mistaken
impression that the same is covered by the interim order
passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, at Hyderabad, in I.A.No.194 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of
2018. The learned counsel has further stated the said
interim order was passed in respect of B, C, D and E
schedule properties only, whereas the plots of the
petitioners are in Schedule A2 property.
A perusal of the interim order passed by the learned II
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in
I.A.No.194 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018, shows that by
virtue of the said interim order, the Court has restrained
the defendants therein from alienating B, C, D and E
schedule properties only and not Schedule A2 properties.
Admittedly, the plot bearing No.473 is part of A2
schedule property but not of B, C, D and E schedule
properties and no relief was sought against the A2 schedule
property i.e., subject plots.
Having regard to the above, there shall be an interim
direction to the Sub Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, to
receive, register and release the documents submitted by
the petitioners in respect of the subject plots, without
reference to the entry made in the prohibited properties list
in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioners
complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908,
and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
However, any such registration is subject to the final
result of the writ petition and the petitioners shall not claim
any equities in case any adverse orders are passed against
them in the main writ petition.
4 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.880 of 2022
Registry shall make an endorsement on the Writ
Petition to the effect that the same shall not be permitted to
be withdrawn."
6. From the above, we find that learned Single Judge
had found from the materials on record that there is no
restraint order in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, an
interim direction was issued to the Sub-Registrar of Ranga
Reddy District to receive, register and release the documents
submitted by the petitioners (appellants) in respect of the
subject land without reference to the entry made in the
prohibited properties list after complying with the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
However, it has been clarified that any such registration would
be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
learned Single Judge ought to have removed the subject land
entirely from the prohibited list instead of passing the aforesaid
order.
8. We are afraid we cannot accept such untenable
contention of learned counsel for the appellants.
5 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.880 of 2022
9. From a perusal of the order dated 20.09.2022, we
find that the aforesaid order is substantially in favour of the
appellants. Relief now sought for by the appellants as
articulated in the appeal would amount to granting of final
relief at the interlocutory stage.
10. We therefore do not find any merit in the writ
appeal.
11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 02.01.2023
KL
