THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.268/9 situated at Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. He has filed a suit in O.S.No.273 of 2023 against respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein and others seeking declaration of title and to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.1952 of 2023 dated 28.09.2023, by which, 4^th respondent has sold the aforesaid subject land to 5^th respondent, as null and void and also for perpetual injunction. Along with the said suit, he has filed Interlocutory Application and the same is pending. Further, the suit in O.S.No.267 of 2023 filed by 5^th respondent against the petitioner and three others seeking perpetual injunction in

respect of the subject land is also pending. While the matter stood thus, on the application submitted by 5^th respondent, 3^rd respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, has issued proceedings dated 20.03.2025 converting the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings dated 20.03.2025, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

3. As discussed supra, the aforesaid two suits are pending and the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.273 of 2023 is also pending. Admittedly, against the impugned proceedings dated 20.03.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent, there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner in terms of Section 8 of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006, and 2^nd respondent, District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir, is the appellate authority. In the light of the same, the petitioner has to file an appeal against the impugned proceedings dated 20.03.2025 within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of such proceedings.

4. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is maintainable under the following exceptional circumstances where there is:

(i) a breach of fundamental rights;

(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

The said principle was held by the Apex Court in the Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and others v. M/s.Commercial Steel Limited, Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1

5. However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out any of the aforesaid circumstances despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less the relief sought in the present Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in terms of Section 8 of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006, before 2^nd respondent challenging the impugned proceedings dated 20.03.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent. On filing such appeal, it is for 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________

K. LAKSHMAN, J th

28 JULY, 2025.

kvni