ORDER :

Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are different, but the respondents are one and the same. In all the writ petitions the subject matter is one and the same and hence, the common order is passed.

3. In all the writ petitions, the relief sought for by the petitioners is not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective plots of land purchased out of the approved layout on the strength of NOC granted by the Revenue Officers by means of registered documents in respect of land in Survey Nos. 197/2, 197/29, 197/31 and 197/49 situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The case of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions, in brief, is as follows :

a) Land in Survey Nos.197/2 to 197/29 and Survey Nos.197/31 to 197/49 was allotted to the respective respondent no. 6 to 13 and their fore fathers, situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District as they were in possession and enjoyment of the land right from 1930 onwards.

B) In the year 1961, bandobast had been conducted, that the allottees were in possession of the said subject lands for more than 30 years and bandobast charges were collected. The land was sub-divided and they were cultivating the land. Due to rapid development, the allottees of the land were unable to cultivate, and therefore converted the said land into plots and made nearly 3000 plots.

C) The allottees obtained sanction of layout on 15.03.1974 and sold the plots to various persons and the petitioners herein too had purchased the plots through respective registered sale deeds.

D) During the year 1991, the Mandal Revenue Officer (will be referred to as MRO hereinafter) transferred the rights and in the year 1993 the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar sought for some clarification from the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer (will be referred to as RDO hereinafter).

E) Both MRO and RDO have submitted reports stating that the names of allottees were already implemented in the revenue records and there is condition preventing the grantees to transfer or sale of the land and there is no bar for registration of the land in Survey Nos.197/2 to 197/29 and 197/31 to 197/49.

f) The petitioners purchased the land and are near completion of the construction. In the year 1996, the District Collector addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, directing not to entertain any registration in respect of the aforesaid land and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land.

G) Respondents from 6 to 13, filed W.P.No.24130 of 1996 before the High Court questioning the letter of the Collector directing the Sub-registrar, Champapet not to entertain registration.

H) W.P.No.24130 of 1996 was disposed off with certain specific observations given below vide order dated 19.04.2008.

In view of the same the direction issued by the District Collector to the extent of resumption of land cannot be sustainable and to the said extent is liable to be set aside.

If any, violations are noticed, it is for the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notices to the persons in whose favour the lands were assigned or the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the lands from the original assignee, listing out the violations and nature of the assignment for making appropriate representation by the persons to whom notices have been issued for resumption of land and the claims put forth by them to be considered and appropriate orders to be passed in accordance to law.

i) If any, order adverse to the interest of the petitioners or subsequent purchasers is passed, until the period of appeal is over, the land shall not be resumed. In view of the amendment of Section 22 A of the Registration Act, it is always open to t