IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Sarath, J.
P.Dheeraj Ranga Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.36478 of 2017
Decided On : 26-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and process of writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of property acquisition and grievances. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. subsequent actions regarding land acquisitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. consistent actions of cancellation for business. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. arguments against cancellation actions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. responses from government representatives. (Para 23 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. court's consideration on the petitioners' claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. court’s findings on the legality of actions. (Para 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 9. key judgements delivered relevant to the case. (Para 40 , 41 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. final order reinstating rights of petitioners. (Para 52) |
ORDER :
K.Sarath, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District in entertaining and registering the Cancellation Deeds dated 23.09.2017, pursuant to the letter No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, who has addressed letter to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in Lr.No.1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to cancel Seventeen (17) sale deeds including the sale deed of the petitioner in WP No.36478 of 2017 and sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657 of 2020 and 1280 of 2024 in respect of lands covered in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 situated at Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), without issuing any notice to the petitioners or their respective vendors and requested to revive the cancelled documents.
2. Since the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, Sri S.Srinivasa Chary, and K.Sridhara Chary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mrs.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
i) FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.36478 of 2017
4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.38 and another extent of Ac.18.34 Guntas in Sy.No.55, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.26.15 Guntas situated at Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, through registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007, registered as No.133/2008 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad from one Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, represented by the AGPA Holders, for a valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in possession of the said land. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner made an application for mutation and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds. Pursuant thereto, the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued a Memo No.434/2004, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mutation in respect of the lands purchased by him cannot be considered.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in refusing for mutation, the petitioner along with others have filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, in Case No.C/1795/2008 under Section 5 (5) of A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the said appeal was dismissed on 27.05.2008 on the ground of limitation. Challenging the same, the petitioner and others have filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.D/3901/2008 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that upon remand of the said matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, taken up the enquiry and pa
State of Uttaranchal and Another vs., Sunil Kumar Vaish and others
Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs., Government of Andhra Pradesh
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P.Velayutham and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.