Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 28
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
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Property Rights
Act Referred
TELANGANA RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT : S.2(b), S.4(a)
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - Principle - If the authorities fail to establish the assigned nature of land, they lack jurisdiction to initiate resumption proceedings. (Paras 10 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed rights over lands previously allocated under outdated laws and had been in possession for decades, contesting new notices threatening resumption of possession.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the notices were issued without proper jurisdiction as the revenue authorities did not provide evidence that the lands were assigned under conditions of non-alienation.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the resumption proceedings could stand in absence of proof of assigned status and conditions of non-alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden lies on authorities to prove land is assigned with non-alienation conditions to validly initiate resumption; failure to do so renders proceedings void.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed, impugned orders set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE (TG)
| 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
