Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mrs. Lingala Padma & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Telangana – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 16683, 17589, 17590, 17591, 17592, 17593, 17618, 17638, 17640, 17641, 17643, 18645, 18646, 18648, 18650, 18652, 18654, 18657, 18662, 18663, 18685, 18688, 19195, 19199, 19204, 19205, 19206, 19207, 19211, 19212, 19213, 19214, 19240, 19270 and 19278 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context and history of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. proceedings stem from implementation of a prior inquiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. result of previous litigation and its impact. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. introduction of complaints leading to contested proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. arguments presented by petitioners and respondents. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's examination of relevant statutory provisions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. clarification on the procedural nuances of section 22a. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. determining inclusion of lands in prohibited lists. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. disputes regarding the status of land ownership. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. conditions for land inclusion under section 22a. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 11. validity of the impugned proceedings based on procedural compliance. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 12. implications of violating principles of natural justice. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 13. dissolution of arguments regarding fraud as a fallback strategy. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 14. considerations for inconsistency and clarity in law. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 15. memorandum of outstanding legal questions. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 16. final decision to set aside proceedings. (Para 77 , 78) |
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. All these writ petitions arise out of identical facts and impugn the same proceeding, i.e., Proceeding No. DCOKNR - F10CAH (1) /1/2020 - ESEC dated 12.05.2025 (hereinafter “impugned proceeding”) issued by respondent No.2 - District Collector, Karimnagar. As such, the writ petitions involve common issues to be adjudicated. Therefore, they were heard together and are being decided vide the present common order.
3. These writ petitions challenge the impugned proceeding, whereby respondent No.2 directed unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, on the ground that the properties form part of the prohibited list maintained under Section 22A of the Telangana Registration Act , 1908 (hereinafter “the Act, 1908”).
Brief Facts
4. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to highlight that the lands of all the petitioners herein fall in Survey Nos.197 and 198 of Kothapalli Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District. As will be demonstrated infra, the said fact is crucial to decide the issues arising in the present writ petitions.
5. Coming to the facts of the case, the present writ petitions trace their genesis to a long-drawn litigation. The litigation began in 1975 when declarations of surplus lands were made by one Shaik Saleh and his family in relation to multiple survey numbers of Kothapalli and Rekurthi Villages of Karimnagar District. These declarations were made under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Alleging such declarations to be fraudulent, a complaint was lodged in 1996. Pursuant to such complaint, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar (hereinafter “RDO”) had addressed a letter dated 09.12.1996 to the then Joint Sub-registrar, Karimnagar, to not register any documents pertaining to the properties over which ceiling cases were pending against Shaik Saleh and family.
6. Contending that the RDO’s letter dated 09.12.1996 was not being implemented, one D. Rajalingam along with three (03) others filed W.P. No. 8454 of 1997. In the said writ petition, a learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.04.1997 directed the Joint Sub-registrar to conduct inquiry in relation to the declarations made by Shaik Saleh and his family within a period of three (03) months. Likewise, the learned Single Judge issued a direction to implement the letter dated 09.12.1996. Against the learned Single Judge’s order in W.P. No. 8454 of 1997, the legal heir of Shaik Saleh, i.e., Shaik Abubakar filed an appeal bearing W.A. No. 612 of 199
AI
Unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds without compliance to legal procedures and principles of natural justice is invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal for registration of properties based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was illegal, arbitrary,....
The court ruled that land cannot be classified as prohibited under Section 22-A without proper Gazette notification, allowing registration of sale deeds.
The court established that proper notifications and adherence to guidelines are essential for enforcing prohibitions on property registration under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act.
The doctrine of res judicata applies to writ petitions, preventing re-litigation of issues already decided, thereby ensuring finality in judicial decisions.
The constitutionality of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 was upheld, establishing that legislative provisions to prevent fraudulent transfers are valid and necessary for public policy prote....
The court ruled that the inclusion of petitioners' land in the prohibition register was erroneous and directed rectification based on prior judicial decisions.
The government does not have the power to entertain a review application unless there is a provision for review under the statute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
