IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY DATE: 11.03.2026 Between:

Mrs. Varkala Sridevi .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents ORDER : ( ORAL )

This writ petition is filed challenging the Resumption Order No.B/73/2026 dated 23.02.2026 passed by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for contravention of Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 (for short ‘PoT Act’).

2.1. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for

Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner has purchased the subject land

admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas in Survey No.621/3 of Nandigama

Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of the registered sale deed bearing document No.9011 of 2005 dated 14.09.2005 from one Mr. Mangali Lingamaiah who was original assignee. The petitioner applied for pattadar pass book and she was issued pattadar pass book bearing No.T05190053418 (Khata No.3252).

2.2. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Government has issued Memo No.4233/Assn.1(3)2018-1 dated 05.03.2018 clarifying that the assigned lands which have been purchased in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 31.12.2017 by a person who is landless poor and is in occupation of the same shall be reassigned to such person and if any resumption proceedings are initiated, the District Collectors are authorised to undertake reassignment of such lands in favour of present third party eligible occupants. The learned senior counsel submitted that such clarification was issued in terms of Section

4B(i) of the PoT Act.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments has raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition and contended that the petitioner has effective alternative remedy under Section 4-A of the PoT Act and instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court, as such, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has ninety (90) days time for preferring appeal under Section 4-A of the PoT Act, however, by the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to vacate the property within three (3) days time, as such, the petitioner apprehends that he will be unduly evicted even before expiry of the appeal time.

5. In the light of the above submissions, considering that the petitioner has remedy under Section 4-A of the PoT Act to prefer appeal within ninety (90) days from the date of passing the impugned order, in the interest of justice, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of forty five (45) days from today. The petitioner shall take steps to prefer appeal challenging the resumption order dated 26.03.2026 before respondent No.3 under Section 4-A of the PoT Act and also an application for interim suspension of the impugned order which shall be disposed of uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

6. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J March 11, 2026.

NOTE: CC BY TODAY. (BO)PV