THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.29089 of 2025

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing impugned notice bearing Lr.No.D/8668/2021, dated 30.06.2025 as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass such other or orders…”

2. Heard Ms.Aishwarya, learned counsel representing Sri J.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an auction notice was published by respondent No.4 in all major newspapers on 30.09.2024 stating that the land/property will be sold by publication for arrears of revenue under the provisions of Section 36 of the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act, 1864’), unless the defaulter or other person acting on his behalf, or claiming an interest in the land, tenders the full amount of the arrears of revenue, with interest and other charges, before sunset on the day 22.10.2024 to that appointed for the sale i.e., 2310.2024. The petitioner is participated in the said auction and has become successful bidder, accordingly deposited 15% of the total sale amount of Rs.21,67,900/- and to enable the petitioner to make further payment as per the terms of the auction conducted on 03.05.2025. But, the petitioner has not done and made a representation on 11.06.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for extension of time to clear the remaining amount. However, the respondents have not act upon the representation made by the petitioner. She would further submit that a notice vide letter No.D/8668/2021, dated 30.06.2025 has been issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4 –Tahsildar under the Act, 1864 stating that the amount credited i.e., Rs.32,76,900/- was forfeited. She would further submit despite acknowledging the representation dated 11.06.2025, neither any action has been taken by the respondents, nor any reply has been given to the said representation by the official respondents. She would further submit that a representation was also made by the petitioner on 05.05.2025 seeking information pertaining to the property which has been put for auction and also to enter upon to the sale deed to enable to the petitioner to obtain necessary grant, no reply has been given to the said representation as well. Therefore, she would seek appropriate direction to the respondents to provide the information as sought for by the petitioner vide representation dated 05.05.2025 and to grant further extension of time to enable to the petitioner to pay balance due amount to the official respondents account.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the representation on which the petitioner has been relied upon dated 05.05.2025 does not contain any endorsement. He would further submit that the petitioner has been declared as successful bidder and being the highest bidder to the said auction, the successful bidder shall also deposit 15% of the sale amount on the date of sale and the remaining within 30 days from the date of sale, failing which the 15% of sale amount shall be forfeited and accordingly the right of the participants in the auction not been considered as per the terms of the auction. The petitioner has to strictly follow the terms of the same. In the absence of any terms notified auction cannot be considered. It is further submitted that as per the orders of this Court in C.C. No.2146 of 2022, dated 21.03.2025, the auction has been conducted and due to non-adherence to the terms agreed upon by the petitioner, said impugned notice has been issued under the Act, 1864 to the petitioner. Hence, there is no infirmity can be attributed in the impugned notice