IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Kolan Rukka Reddy and nine others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, reptd. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.10920, 11110 and 11897 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions detail the challenge against land notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. respondent's arguments on land assignment and legality. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of delay and jurisdiction in appeals. (Para 10 , 13 , 18) |
| 4. criteria for valid resumption proceedings imposed by law. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 5. court's final order declaring notices null and void. (Para 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Writ Petition No.10920 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Form-I notice bearing No.B/361/2019, dated 10.07.2020, issued by respondent No.4, at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Writ Petition No.11110 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Form-II notice bearing No.B/361/2019, dated 10.07.2020, issued by respondent No.4, at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order, vide proceedings No.B/77/2020, dated 09.07.2020, passed by respondent No.3, confirming the order, vide proceedings No.B/3854/2015, dated 07.01.2016, passed by the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal (presently Bachupally Mandal), Medchal District, as illegal, null and void and consequently, to the set aside the same.
4. Since the parties, subject matter and the issues involved in all the three Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
5. For convenience, Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020 is taken up as a lead case and the facts stated therein, which are almost similar in the other Writ Petitions, are narrated.
6. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents.
7. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020, are that the then Tahsildar of Quthbullapur Mandal (presently Bachupally Mandal), Medchal District, collected a sum of Rs.201.72 paise each from petitioner No.1 and fathers of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the upset value, and allotted an extent of Acs.4.18 guntas to each of them under Laoni Rules, 1950; that their names were mutated in the revenue records; that pahanies, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the said persons under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; that after the demise of the said allottees, the said lands were inherited by petitioner Nos.2 to 10 from their fathers/grandfathers and the names of the petitioners were recorded as pattadars through Faisal Patti for the year 1960; that their names were also mutated in the revenue records and since then, the petitioners are owners and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective extents of lands, which is evident from the pahani and pattadar pass books.
7.1. It is further averred that petitioner No.1, and one K.Chandra Reddy, during his life time, have sold certain extent of land to one P.T.Narayana Raju, Durga Reddy and V.V.D.Prasad, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1668/1996, dated 22.03.1996 and the said persons in turn sold the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 to Vignan Vidyalaya Limited, which utilized the same for educational purposes; and that further, the legal heirs of the allottees-Chandra Reddy and Raji Reddy raised few structures during the period 1990.
7.2. It is further averred that while the things stood thus, during the month of October, 2015, respondent No.4 along with revenue officials directed the petitioners and their cousins to vacate and hand over possession of the subject land consisting of Acs.11.14 guntas, failing which, threatened them with dire consequences, however, the petitioners, with the help of their well-wishers, were able to av
Sunkara Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others
B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Anantapur
Thripuravalam Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector
Authorities must prove land was assigned with non-alienation conditions to initiate resumption proceedings; failure to establish this invalidates the actions taken.
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), but the Government raised a plea that the petitioners are not entitled to restore the land in view of the amendment of Section 4 by Act No.8 of 2008.
Both transferor and transferee must receive proper notices in resumption proceedings to uphold natural justice and procedural fairness.
The court established that both transferor and transferee must receive proper notices in resumption proceedings under the Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The court established that adherence to procedural requirements in eviction proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfers Act is essential for the validity of such orders.
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.