SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17046

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
D. Bheem Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No. 18872 Of 2019 | W.P.Nos. 33051, 33134 And 41362 Of 2022 | W.P.Nos. 29036, 29086 And 29089 Of 2024



Disputed questions of fact regarding the classification of land as private or government property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act should be adjudicated by the designated administrative grievance redressal committee rather than through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Prohibited list - Inclusion of properties - Redressal mechanism - Constitution of Committee - Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 98, dated 23.08.2025, for redressal of grievances regarding notifications under Section 22-A(1)(e) - Court directed that petitioners must approach the newly constituted Committee for grievance adjudication rather than invoking writ jurisdiction for factual verification.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the inclusion of Plot Nos. 45, 46, and 48 in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A, asserting the land was private patta land. Respondents contended that the land is government property (Poramboke Sarkari) based on revenue records from 1955-58. Similar grievances were raised in subsequent writ petitions regarding the refusal of registration for these properties.

Findings of Court:
The court found that disputes regarding whether land is private patta land or government-owned involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be determined under Article 226. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioners to submit their representations to the Committee constituted vide G.O. Ms. No. 98.

Issues: Whether the court should adjudicate on the inclusion of properties in the prohibited list under Section 22-A, and whether an alternate redressal mechanism is required.

Ratio Decidendi: Adjudication of title and classification of property status (private vs. government) cannot be performed by the High Court under Article 226 due to the requirement for detailed factual verification; such matters must be directed to designated administrative committees.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to approach the Committee.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the committee and mechanism for redressal under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act for grievances regarding prohibition lists?

What is the Court’s directive regarding de-notification or deletion from the prohibited list and the time frame for considering representations?

What is the status of registration for plots 45 to 48 in Sy.No.274/1 after the Committee is constituted?


Table of Content
1. challenge to the inclusion of private land in the prohibited property list under section 22-a. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contention regarding property titles, revenue records, and unauthorized constructions versus government land claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court holds that factual disputes over land classification must be resolved by an administrative committee rather than article 226. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. uniform disposal of connected writ petitions based on the established redressal mechanism. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.18872 of 2019:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the District Collector vide Proceedings No.E1/2561/2018, dated 06.07.2019, as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and further direct the respondent No.2 to delete the Plot Nos.45, 46 and 48 in Sy.No.274/1 at Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition as per the contentions of the petitioner are that one Dharamsingh was the pattedar of a total extent of Ac.6.07 gts., of land in Survey No.274 of Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Medchal Taluka of Hyderabad District from the year 1964 onwards and subsequently, the said land has been purchased by individuals and also by a society by name Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society and their names were mutated in the revenue records. It is submitted that several houses were constructed by the members of the Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society by obtaining permissions and approvals from the municipal authorities and taxes have also been collected thereon. The petitioner also claims to have obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, Quthbullapur and to have made the construction on the said property and that the petitioner allotted with H.No.35-335 in respect of Plot No.46 (open land) vide receipt dated 27.09.1983 and 15.09.1983 and construction permission was also granted for Plot No.48 on 16.04.1982 and property taxes have been paid from then onwards and receipts were given for the same. Subsequently, after upgradation of Quthbullapur Municipality, new house numbers were given as H.No.35-1-C and 35-1-E and power connection was also taken for the said house properties. It is also submitted that the revenue authorities themselves have collected NALA tax as per the receipt issued by the MRO, Quthbullapur Mandal on 14.08.2003 for the Plot No.46 and the petitioner also availed loan from Vysya bank by mortgaging the property vide Doc.No.12729/2007 and got the same released upon repayment. It is submitted that the said property was also leased out to State Bank of India and structures are existing on the property. It is submitted that the entire society land was used for construction and establishment of a residential colony and the colony is named as Kalavathi Nagar. It is submitted that in Plot No.46, church was constructed unauthorizedly by Hosanna Mandir by the respondent No.9 and that respondents No.5 to 9 have been squatting on the property and are preventing the petitioner from removal of the illegal constructions and converting the building into church without any permission and sanctions. It is submitted that the said persons have filed Writ Petitions and even the petitioner’s daughter also filed a Writ Petition before this Court and also a Contempt Case for non-implementation of the orders of the High Court. It is submitted that in order to prevent the petitioners from enjoying their property and in order to grab the property, it was got included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act by stating that it is a Government land and that the petitioner cannot enjoy the same o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top