IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Between:

M A Razak Hussain S/o Late Ahmed Ali Siddiqui … Petitioner And:

The State of Telangana reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and 21 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 26.09.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY % 26.09.2025 Between:

# M A Razak Hussain S/o Late Ahmed Ali Siddiqui .... Petitioners And:

$ The State of Telangana reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and 21 others.

....Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas, Learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 22: Sri M.Surender Rao, Learned senior counsel appearing for Smt E.Subhavathi ? Cases Referred:

1. 2021(5) ALD 595 (TS) 2. MANU/AP/1120/2016

3. AIR 2023 Special Court 781

4. 2024 INSC 297 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated

23.09.2023, in Case No.G/12320/2018, passed by respondent No.3 by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondent No.3 to act in accordance with the directions of this Court in CRP.No.539 of 2010, vide orders, dated 11.08.2017.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. E.Subhavathi, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.5 to 22.

3. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner in the writ affidavit are that originally, his father-Ahmed Ali Siddiqui was owner of land admeasuring Acs.59-30 guntas in Sy.No.396 of Chattanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that one Katika Gopoji was the protected tenant of that land, but he was in possession of land only to an extent of Acs.27.16 guntas;

that since the said protected tenant sub-leased a part of land to one K.Sayanna, the original owner terminated the tenancy in respect of the entire land by notice dated 07.10.1968 and filed an application before the Tahsildar for recovery of possession under Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1950); that subsequently, Sy.No.396 was sub-divided into Sy.Nos.652 to 657 and the protected tenant was in possession of land in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and he was not in possession of land in Sy.Nos.653, 656 and 655; that an enquiry was conducted by then Tahsildar, who, by order dated 19.02.1974 terminated the tenancy and directed eviction of protected tenant-Gopoji as well as his sub- tenant; that consequently, the name of Gopoji was rounded off and thus, the protected tenancy stood terminated. The said proceedings were challenged by the protected tenant-Gopoji before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in File No.B7/1/1974, but the same was dismissed and he has further challenged the said order in CRP.No.1136 of 1975 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said Revision Petition was also dismissed on

07.04.1976.

3.1. It is further averred that after the death of Gopoji, his grandsons by name Ramchanderji, Kondaji, Nagoji and Baloji made an application to Tahsildar on 03.02.1990, under Section 32(1) of the Act, 1950, for restoration of possession in respect of land in sy.No.396(old), however, the same was closed on 07.11.1998 on the ground