Telangana High Court
Mohammed Zia Ul Haq vs The State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6782 of 2025
ORDER:
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and pattadar of
agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas in
Survey No.412/అ, Acs.2.03 guntas in Survey No.413/ అ and
Acs.3.22 guntas in Survey No.415/అఆ, situated at Cholapally
Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the
subject land') having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed
vide Document No.4679 of 2007, dated 27.01.2007. It is further
stated that the revenue authorities mutated the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records as per the provisions of the
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for
short, 'the ROR Act, 1971'). It is further stated that the subject land
of the petitioner and other lands situated within the limits of
Chowlapally Village of Farooqnagar Mandal are the subject matter of
the appeal in Case No.B/ROR/1364/2008 which was allowed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, vide order dated
25.06.2009, directing respondent No.4 to implement the name of the
appellant therein in revenue records in Form No.1 and other village
records duly carrying necessary amendments in Form No.1 ROR and
issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of the
2 CVBR, J
appellant therein in respect of the land in Survey Nos.412, 413, 415,
427 and 438 and report compliance. It is further stated that
aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2009 in Case No.B/ROR/1364/
2008, Sri Syed Abdul Hakeem, who is respondent No.1 therein, has
preferred a revision vide case No.D1/96/2009 and File
No.D1/5168/2009 and the vendor of the petitioner and two others
have preferred a revision case No.D1/92/2009 and File
No.D1/5164/2009 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the
Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar allowed the said two revision cases
vide orders, dated 11.05.2012 by setting aside the order, dated
25.06.2009 passed in Case No.B/ROR/1364/2008 and advised the
respondents in case No.D1/92/2009 and File No.D1/5164/2009 to
approach the civil Court seeking redressal in the matter and the
respondents in case No.D1/96/2009 and File No.D1/5168/2009 to
put forth their claims in the main suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008 pending
before the learned VII Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar for
adjudication. As per the orders, dated 11.05.2012 of the Joint
Collector, respondent No.4 has issued proceedings No.B/2676/2012
dated 13.09.2012 by ordering to restore the names of the original
parties in respect of Survey Nos.412, 413, 415, 427, 438 available
prior to passing of the order dated 25.06.2009 and the petitioner,
being the purchaser of part of the lands in the said survey numbers,
his name was entered in the revenue records in respect of the subject
3 CVBR, J
land as pattadar and he was issued pattadar passbook
No.T05060200325 Khata No.550 dated 20.04.2018. It is further
submitted that prior to filing of the two revisions and appeal, the
revision petitioner in Case No.D1/96/2009 and two others have
already filed a suit vide O.S.No.33 of 2008 for partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties and the said suit was
preliminarily decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013
passed by learned VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, dated 19.02.2013 in O.S.No.33
of 2008, defendant No.7 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 has preferred a first
appeal in A.S.No.256 of 2013 and others have filed Cross Objections
(SR).No.7003 of 2013 before this Court and this Court allowed the
said appeal suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2023 by
setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2023 passed in
O.S.No.33 of 2008 and dismissed the Cross Objections (SR).No.7003
of 2013. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 and others in
A.S.No.256 of 2013 have preferred S.L.P(C).No.25194-25195 of 2023
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending and no
stay was granted in the said S.L.P. The grievance of the petitioner is
that even after the litigation attaining finality, the subject lands have
been included in the list of prohibited properties-2 maintained under
the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 since 03.07.2019 and even
though the petitioner has made online application in Dharani Portal
4 CVBR, J
vide Transaction ID No.2300024249 dated 05.08.2023 for deletion of
the subject land from the list of prohibited properties-2 and de-
notifying the same and consequential issuance of the pattadar
passbook, the respondents are not considering the same. Hence, the
present writ petition is filed.
2. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is
being disposed of at the admission stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the
litigation has attained finality, the respondents have to delete the
subject land of the petitioner from the list of prohibited properties-2.
4. The sub-section (4) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act,
1908 confers the power on the State Government either suo motu or
on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders
of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India to proceed
to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under
Sub-Section (2) and the Rules made under the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, since it is the specific
case of the petitioner that he has made an application in Dharani
Portal vide Transaction ID No.301085900001859 dated 05.08.2023
for deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties-
5 CVBR, J
2, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition
directing the respondents to examine the said application strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and
taking into consideration of the pattadar passbook issued earlier
under the provisions of ROR Act, 1971 and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law. In any event, if the petitioner fails to satisfy
any of the requirements, respondents are directed to pass a reasoned
order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of
eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous applications if any, pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.
____________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
06.03.2025
gkv
