WP/28288/2025 of Mr. Syed Osman Ahmed Quadri Vs The Telangana Indrustrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd on 29 January 2026

ORDER:

possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 0.20 Yards) in Survey No. 4l/11 situated at Serilingampally Mardal, Ranga Reddy Respondents Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner ald Guntas (2a2O Sq. Khanamet Viliage, District having purchased the same from one Nookala Krishna through a sale deed dated 23.O2.LggS. In view of urban2ation, petitioner is stated to have executed a Development Agreement_cum_ Irrevocable General power of Attorney in favour of the deponent Sri Valluri Venkata Satya Akhilesh in respect of 1192.06 out of total extent of 2420 square yards of Iald to construct a building complex over the subject property with a built_up of approximately 2500O Sq. feet consisting of 1 Cellar 1 Stilt + 5 Upper Floors. When the deponent presented the Development

Agreement for registration, the Registering Autk register and release the document on the 11 District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued letter de along with a list wherein it is showing that the No. 41/ 1 1 of Khanamet Viliage are treated ; lands. In view of the same, petitioner filed V/ 23234 of 2025 wherein this Court uid-e order d;t granted interim orders directing the Registeri.t register and release the document without refere r issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy. r said order, the Registering Authority registered er Development Agreement-cum_ Irrevocable Gerr Attorney and a1iotted document No. 72432 of 2Oi,,:

1.1. It is stated, Respondent Corporation lands in Survey Nos. 41/l to 4l/73 of Khaner Government iands and the same werd allotted t so, on 15.09.2O2S, the ofhcials of Respondent Nr Respondents 2 and 3 visited the subject prr> issuing any notice to petitioner and tried to dispo; the property and to fence the same. This actior petitioner, is highly illegal, arbitrary and in viokL. 300-.{ of the Constitution. rrit5z refused to cund that the .ed 15.03.2025 lnds in Survey s Government it Petition No. ed 06.08.2025 I Authority to ce to the letter rrsuant to the d released the ral Power of s claiming the ret Village as them. While 1 along with rertJr without ess him from according to Lon of Article I I i

2. In the counter Iiled on behalf of respondent Corporation, it is stated, that the lalrd claimed by Petitioner in Survey No. 41/ 1 I of Khanamet Village is part of Gove'rnment Land. It is stated that they are adopting the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.2 filed counter on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4 stating that as per Khasra Pa-hani for the year 1954-55 of Khanamet Village, the lald in Survey No. 55 (old) admeasuring Acs. 286-00 guntas is classifred as "Poramboke Sarkari" and belongs to Government. Revision Survey of the Village was done during 1957-58; survey numbers and its extent have been changed as per Revision survey, arrd New Survey Numbers, with extent are recorded. As per Wasool Baqui, old Survey No.55 corresponding to new Survey No.41, totally admeasuring Acs.252.24 gtntas, situated at I(hanamet Village, Seriiingampally Mandal, is classfied as "Porarnboke" and it is Government land, and as per Sethwar also, this land bearing Survey No. (New) 41 has been classified as "Poramboke" i.e. Government land.

3.1. It is stated, during 1962, the lrrd in Survey No.41 admeasuring Acs.47.O0 was assigned to tr3 persons for agricultural purpose and their narnes were also recorded in pattedar column, leaving Acs. 205.24 guntas in Survey No. 4l lL4 of Khanamet Village, which is recorded as Govemrnent land. The land is not alienable and the subject pat were issued for land less poor persons only.

3.2. As per the entries of pahanies, it i; Acs.S-OO in Survey No.41/ I I was assigned to or Mallalah ald iater it has come to notice t I representatives sold the said assigned land in ccr the assignment rules. The land in Survey I'l Khanamet Village is also included in the list c property under Section 22-A of the Registration ,\ other assignees/Lega1 representatives of assign,: No.41 of Khanamet Village have also sold out Iands for which the same have been resumed t ; custody.

3.3. It is further stated that out of the Go,,' in Survey No. 41/14 admeasuring Acs. 205-14 grL the extents alienated to Andhra Pradesl Infrastructure Corporation (Now TGIIC) anrl Metropolitan Development Authority and if purchased the land through auction conducted purchased through HMDA, it can be alienable. !'. land is assigned/Government land, but in assignec of the persons made the land into plots and a-lso s started constructions against the Rules ald tht activity was stopped by the held staJf of this re; a certificates evident that : Sri Nukala rt his legal travention of

t. 4l/71 of ' prohibitory t, 1908. The s in Survey eir assigned Government rnment land tas, some of Industrial Hyderabad rny person ry TGIIC or e remaining lalds, some ;me of them said illegal rondent and some of the encroachers {iled writ petitions before this Court and also District Court seeking direction in their favour with a mala fide intention to grab the valuable Government land. The lands in queslion have been recorded as ,,patta" lalds instead of "loani patta", the then M.R.O., appears to have granted mutation illegally. Any mutation granted over the Government assigned land is not valid under the law arrd is null and void.

3.4. As the assignee had sold the assigned land in contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, l9TZ, in order to protect the interest of Government, as per the directives of this Court in Writ Appeals No. 343 of 2075,232 of 2Ot2 and 352 of 2013 dated. 23.12.2015 and also in various Writ petitions, the offrcial respondents have taken action to include the subject land in list of prohibitory property under Section 22-A of ttre Registration.Act, 19O8 in earlier events and also Iatest by Letter dated 15.O3.2025 of the District Collector, Rangareddy. According to this respondent, the documents executed over the subject lands are not valid under law and are null and void. In Writ Petition No. 23234 of 2025, interim order was passed on 06-08-2025 directing the Registering Authori!/ to register and release the document without reference to the letter issued by the District Collector.

3.5. It is further stated, as petitioner is possession of the subject 1and, the question notices.to him does not arise. Hence, the order No. 36887 of 2024 is not applicable to this case. submits that it is settled law that a person cal.t of his properfy without following due pr l Respondents have not issued aly notice to pet i possession of the subject property and this ac depriving his client of his property without followir of law and thereby Article 300-A of the Constitu! violated. According to him, in respect of the :;r earlier, Writ Petition No. 36gg7 of 2024 was Iilec Court by order dated OT.O2.2O2S directed responl due process of law laid down under law.

5. Learned Government pleader for Re,,t that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this C,r again, has reiterated that mere entries in revenuc not confer any right and title over the lalds [.lrr whose name is recorded in revenue records shol right and tifle over the land as to how he acquired by liling documentar5r evidences in support of hirr submitted that subject land is not in physical I petitioner or his agreement holder but is in posse

Learned counsel for petitioner Ii. i S. Sridhar Lot in physical f issuing any r Writ Petition rt be deprived :ess of law. ioner to take amounts to g due process rn of India is me property, wherein this :nts to fo1low aue submits trt, time and records does the person d prove his he said land claim. It is rssession of ;sion of the

Government as the land in question is Government land and resumed the assigned land- Therefore, the question of interference in the subject land does not arise.

6. Reply affidavit is filed stating that Respondent No.2 except stating that subject land is government lald, has not filed any documents evidencing the same. Respondent No.2 in order to substantiate the case filed original sethwar but it does not contain any date and from where the said document is obtained. Further, Survey No. 41 is sub_divided ald in the document filed it is shown as only Survey No.4l with no sub_ division. Hence the document liled by the Respondent No.2 cannot be taken into consideration. It is stated, subject land was purchased by Petitioner under a registered sale deed dated

23. O2.L995 and from that date onwards, he is in physicat possession of the land. The averments in the writ alfidavit are reiterated.

7. Apart from the counter-affidavit f,rled on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4,learned Government pleader for Revenue has placed on record the written instructions submitted by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal stating that subject land is part and parcel of government Iald which was earlier assigned to one Nukala Ma,llaiah to an extent of Acs.S.OO in Survey No. 41 / I l; the said assigrred land has already been taken into government custody as they sold the \ \

same in contravention of the assignment rules. stated that petitioner who claims to be the or,,,n I assigned land under the guise of sale deeds exr., legal representatives of original assignee is not t: the provisions under the Assignment Rules and ha salctity.

8. In view of the specifrc instructions (,1 Collector & Tahsildar, this Court is not inclinecl t contentions of learned counsel for petitioner. The does not merit consideration and the same is th : to be dismissecl.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, d Lr costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Ap 1 any shall stand closed. It is further r of subject uted by the rable as per 'rng no lega1 the Deputy ) accept the Vrit Petition efore, liable missed. No lications. if SD/-A.H.S, (,OWRI SHANKAR ASSI( TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER /,TRUE COPY/' To,

1. , One CC to SRI S SRIDHAR' Advocate [OPUCI OnE CC tO SRI M,SRIKANTH REDDY' SC FOR TGIIC ( )PUCI Two ccs to Gp F_OR REVENUE, High court for the st:rr -, of rerangana at Hrderabad lOU l l Two CD CoPies P\4 us

/

HIGH COURT DATED:2910112026

ORDER

WP.No.28288 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION TIVITHOUT COSTS F. ? I 'l J F o le o Ic ( )

q

() rl oris ), - ,6 \