Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12739
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
M/s.SRB Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22448 of 2014 | Writ Petition Nos.32345 of 2014 | Writ Petition Nos.18250 of 2016 | Writ Petition Nos.18251 of 2016 | Writ Petition Nos.18279 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and Counsel for the unofficial respondents
For the Respondents:Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 and other respondents
Administrative orders on land disputes must comply with due process; unresolved title disputes require resolution in civil courts before altering administrative records.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - The court sets aside a Government memo dated 19.05.2014 and consequential proceedings regarding land mutations due to the lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles as the memo was issued without notice to affected parties. (Paras 27, 32, 40)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court ruled that unresolved disputes about title and ownership of land must be addressed before revenue authorities and that earlier mutation orders remain valid until contradicted in a civil suit. (Paras 38, 41)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions challenged Government orders related to land assigned to freedom fighters and subsequent mutations made without proper inquiry and notice to affected parties, particularly concerning the validity of sale deeds.
Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned government order was arbitrary, issued without notice and without confirming the pendency of previous legal challenges, and stated that the matter should await civil resolution.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the government memo and the jurisdiction of various revenue authorities to alter land titles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that administrative orders must respect legal due process and parties should resolve their title disputes in civil courts before seeking administrative relief.
Result: W.P.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014 allowed; W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common order in multiple writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background regarding land assignment and purchase. (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioner's claims about land ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. judicial procedure regarding appeals and rulings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. respondents' counterarguments against the petition. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. jurisdiction claims related to land mutation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. discussion on limits of jurisdiction in land disputes. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. court's view on conflict in appeals and finality. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. analysis on legality of government orders. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. final decision regarding government memo and judicial orders. (Para 33 , 35) |
| 11. emphasis on waiting for civil court resolution. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. conclusion and order from the court. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
COMMON ORDER:
As all these writ petitions arise out of the same schedule property and interlinked with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014 are filed seeking to declare the Government Memo bearing No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 and the consequential mutation proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 vide Proc.No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 in pursuance of the directions issued by the respondent No.2-District Collector vide Lr.No.E1/5710/2007 dated 28.05.2014 pursuant to the instructions of the respondent No.1 and consequential panchanama File bearing No.G4/1319/2014 dated 05.08.2014 are illegal and arbitrary.
3. W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 are filed seeking to declare the common order passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District dated 07.04.2016 in ROR revision in different case numbers as illegal and arbitrary.
4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is the respondent No.10 in W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.18250 and 18251 of 2016. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 in W.P.Nos.22448 and 32445 of 2014 are petitioners in W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
6. The W.P.No.22448 of 2014 is filed by M/s.SRB Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association formed by the purchasers of the petitioner-Company in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 challenging the same impugned proceedings. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is taken as a lead case in first batch of cases.
Contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it acquired different extents of lands from different persons, who had purchased those lands from the freedom fighters namely Sri V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao and Balakistaiah, who were granted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.00 each in Sy.No.108 of Tondupally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy by the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad vide separate proceedings. The petitioner-Company has developed the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts after obtaining mutation order from the respondent No.4- Tahsildar and permission from the Grampanchayat, Tondupally and after development, sold the same to third party purchasers under registered sale deeds. While it being so, the respondent No.4, without conducting any enquiry, has passed resumption order under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (For short ‘the POT Act, 1977’) vide proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated 15.04.2006 stating that the lands are assigned lands and the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner are not valid, but he did not take any steps in the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.30.00 in Sy.Nos.108/AA, 108/E and 108/EE , but resumed only the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts, which was developed as
