Telangana High Court
Mr. Madala Sriram Bhaskar vs The State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.5735 of 2025
ORDER:
Questioning the action of respondent No.5 in including the
petitioner's property admeasuring Ac.2-10 gts., in Sy.No.75
situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District (subject property) in the prohibited list
based on the letter issued by respondent No.6 dated 20.01.2025
alleging the non-conversion of the said land from agriculture to
non-agriculture which hasno basis to include the property in
the prohibited list and despite the said land being already
converted into NALA after payment of Rs.50,94,481/- by the
petitioner is being challenged in this writ petition.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Ayesha
Begum claims to be the pattadar of the subject property and her
name was also recorded in the Khasra, Sethuwar and pahani
copies. Thereafter, the subject property changed hands through
the various transactions:
(a) It was sold to Sri Mandari Singh through a registered
Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.830 of 1965, dated 23.08.1965.
::2::
(b) The said Sri Mandari Singh sold it to Sri Chadlavada
Venkateswar Rao and Others by way of Registered Sale Deed
bearing Doc.No.831 of 1965, dated 23.08.1965.
(c) Subsequently, Sri Chadlavada Venkateswar Rao sold the
land to Sri B.Anjaneyulu and Sri N.Appa Rao under Registered
Sale Deed bearing No.5987 of 1981, dated 25.10.1981.
(d) After the demise of Sri B.Anjaneyulu, the property was
partitioned between his wife, Smt. B.Bhulakshmi, and Sri N.Appa
Rao, through a Registered partition Deed No.16265 of 1993,
dated 15.02.1993. By virtue of the said partition, Smt.
B.Bhulakshmi became the absolute owner of the Subject Property.
She, in turn, sold the Subject Property to Sri K.Chandrashekar
under Registered Sale Deed No.2027 of 1995, dated 21.02.1995
and the land got mutated into the name of Sri K.Chandrashekar
vide mutation proceedings No.B/3136/98, dated 06.10.1998
issued by the MRO Serilingampally Mandal.
3. Subsequently, the said K.Chandrashekar who has
purchased the subject property executed three (3) individual
Agreements of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, each for
Ac.0-30 gts., in favour of M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., vide
::3::
registered Doc.Nos.3518/1999, 3519/1999 and 3520/1999
dated 22.05.1999. Subsequently, the said K.Chandrashekar
sold the land to Madala Shakuntala vide three (3) registered sale
deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7019/2006, 7020/2006 and 7021/2006
dated 25.03.2006 and by virtue of the above three (3) sale deeds
dated 25.03.2006, the grandmother of the petitioner (viz.,
Madala Shakuntala) became absolute owner and possessor of
the subject property. Thereafter, the said Madala Shakuntala
died on 13.05.2024 and she has executed her last Will deed on
11.04.2022 registered as Doc.No.42/2022 in the Office of Sub-
Registrar, Nallapadu.
4. Subsequent to the execution of the Will deed, on
29.04.2024, the petitioner's grandmother executed a registered
Codicil vide Doc.No.84 of 2024 clarifying that the residual
clauses (paras 20, 21, 22 of page 6) in the original Will shall
stand modified to the effect that all properties not included in
the Will within item Nos.1 to 47 shall go solely to her grandson
Madala Sriram Bhaskar (i.e., the petitioner herein).
Mr.L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
would submit that by virtue of Will dated 11.04.2022 along with
::4::
Codicil dated 29.04.2024, the subject property devolved upon
the petitioner and petitioner's name was mutated into the
revenue records as the lawful owner of the subject property. He
would further submit that the petitioner also obtained NALA
conversion upon payment of Rs.50,94,481/- by way of Dharani
portal, converting the subject property from agricultural to non-
agricultural use vide proceedings No.HS2400005295 dated
17.01.2025.
5. The petitioner's further case is that he came to know
that M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Pvt., Ltd., represented by its
Director Madala Suvarna Lakshmi had made a representation
dated 20.01.2025 to the District Registrar, Moosapet,
Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.5 herein
falsely claiming that the subject property elongs to
M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Pvt., Ltd., by concealing the Codicil
dated 29.04.2024. Respondent No.6 also made false allegations
in her representation regarding NALA conversion process by
claiming that the subject property was not converted from
agriculture to non-agriculture. Basing on the said
representation, respondent No.5 placed the subject property
::5::
under prohibitory list under Section 22(A) of the Registration
Act, 1908.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn
attention of this Court to the prohibited properties list in the
Dharani portal wherein the subject property was shown a
prohibited property as it is covered by Court stay. Learned
senior counsel would further refer to a common judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Invecta Technologies
Private Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , wherein validity
of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 was upheld and
certain guidelines are issued. The relevant paragraph is
extracted herein for ready reference:
"29. It was further held that sub-section (4) of
Section 22A of the Act provides a remedy to an
aggrieved party to approach the State Government
for deletion of his property from the notification. It
has further been held that if any such application is
made, the competent authority has to afford an
opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to produce
materials/documents in support of such a claim. The
claim made by an aggrieved person has to be dealt
2024 (1) ALT 272
::6::
with by a speaking order. It has further been held
that in case such an application is made under
Section 22A(4) of the Act, the same has to be decided
within a period of three months. It has also been
held that the mechanism provided under Section
22A(4) of the Act shall not preclude the parties to file
any other appropriate proceeding, including civil suit,
for similar or appropriate relief."
7. Learned senior counsel would further submit that
following the above guideline, the petitioner had submitted a
representation on 21.02.2025 to respondent Nos.3 and 5
seeking for removal of the subject property from the prohibitory
list.
8. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition,
learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking a
direction to respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's
representation dated 21.02.2025 in a time bound period.
9. Mr.Bhanu Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.6 would submit that petitioner herein
and the Chairman of respondent No.6 are the family members
::7::
and there are some pending disputes among the family
members. Apart from that the respondent No.6 made
representation questioning the NALA proceedings as well as the
Will deed.
10. Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that if the
petitioner's representation is still pending for consideration, the
respondent authorities may be directed to consider the same
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
11. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the
record.
12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel
on either side and without expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent
authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
21.02.2025 for deletion of the subject property from the
prohibitory properties list and pass appropriate orders strictly in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
::8::
within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. It is made clear that petitioner as well as
respondent No.6 shall be given a fair opportunity of personal
hearing.
13. With the consent of learned counsel on either side, this
writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No costs.
_____________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR., J
04.03.2025
mrm
