Telangana High Court
P.Janga Reddy vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., And 13 … on 17 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION Nos.34622 & 34839 OF 2015 AND
36633 OF 2018 AND 1028 OF 2021
DATE: 17.07.2026
Writ Petition No.34622 of 2015
Between:
Poreddy Janga Reddy and others
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
Writ Petition No.34839 of 2015
Between:
V.Sathi Reddy
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad
and others
...Respondents
Writ Petition No.36633 of 2018
Between:
Ch.Sindhu
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
2
Writ Petition No.1028 of 2021
Between:
Karamchedu Venkata Narasimha Charyulu
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department, Hyderabad
and others
...Respondents
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues that arise in the above Writ Petitions are
integrally one and the same, these matters are being disposed of by
this common order.
2. W.P.No.34622 of 2015 is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“…..to issue a Writ or direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records in respect of the order dated 01-09-2015
passed in File No: No. F2/25586/2010 from the office of the
Respondent No.3 herein and may be pleased to quash the same by
declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, void, contrary to the
principles of natural justice and against the law or may be pleased
to issue any other writ or direction which the Hon’ble High Court
deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.”
3. W.P.No.34839 of 2015 is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“….to issue a Writ or direction more particularly Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records in respect of the order dated 01-09-2015
passed in File No: No. F2/25588/2010 from the office of the
Respondent No.3 herein and may be pleased to quash the same by
3declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, void and contrary to the
principles of natural justice and against the law or may be pleased
to issue any other writ or direction which the Hon’ble High Court
deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.”
4. W.P.No.36633 of 2018 is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“…..to pass an order or direction or writ more particularly one in
the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents
more particularly the Respondent No. 3 in refusing to register the
Sale Deed Dated 9-04-2018 presented by the Petitioner in respect
of Plot Bearing No.64, admeasuring 244 Sq. Yards or its equivalent
to 204 Sq.Mtrs., in Sy.Nos.47 and 48 situated at Pedda Amberpet
Village, Previously Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Presently
Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal
arbitrary and against the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and
consequently direct the Respondent No’s 2 and 3 to receive and
register the Sale Deed dated 09-04-2018 pertaining to the above
property in accordance with law and pass such other order or
orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”
5. W.P.No.1028 of 2021 is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“…..to issue a Writ or Writs more particularly in the nature of
mandamus, thereby declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 &
3 officials in revoking the LRS proceedings vide Letter
No.HMDAL094237/LRS/GTKR/PIg/HMDA/2015-16, dated 03-9-
2019 as illegal, arbitrary and against G.O.Ms.No. 151 of Muncipal
Administration and & Urban Development (M1) department dated
2-11-2015, and consequently set aside the same as not binding on
the petitioners and or pass such other order or orders may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
4
Background of the litigation
6. These four writ petitions, though instituted at different
points of time by different petitioners and seeking distinct reliefs,
share a common origin, namely, a long-standing dispute concerning
the protected tenancy rights in respect of the agricultural lands
comprised in Sy.Nos.47 and 48 of Pedda Amberpet Village, formerly
Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal (now Abdullapurmet Revenue
Mandal), Ranga Reddy District.
7. The controversy has, over a period of more than a decade,
traversed multiple proceedings before the revenue authorities under
the relevant tenancy laws and has thereafter given rise to several
consequential proceedings before the registration and planning
authorities, culminating in the present batch of writ petitions. The
W.P.No.36633 of 2018 and the W.P.No.1028 of 2021 are,
consequential in nature, their adjudication being substantially
dependent upon the determination of the foundational issues arising
in W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
primary writ petitions’) concerning the rival claims of the parties to
the status of protected tenants and the legality of the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
8. W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015 have been instituted by
Poreddy Janga Reddy and V.Sathi Reddy, respectively, who claim to
5
be the legal heirs and successors-in-interest of the original Protected
Tenants in respect of Sy.No.48 admeasuring Ac.1.29 Gts and
Sy.No.47 admeasuring Ac.2.25 Gts, respectively. The petitioners
therein call in question the legality and validity of the common order
dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy
District, in Appeal Case Nos.F2/25586/2010 and F2/25588/2010.
9. By the impugned common order, the Joint Collector-I
allowed the appeals preferred by the purchasers claiming through
the original pattadars, set aside the proceedings of the Deputy
Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, dated 04.10.2008,
whereby succession certificates had been issued in favour of the
petitioners as legal heirs of the original Protected Tenants and
consequential delivery of possession of the subject lands had been
ordered under Section 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “the Tenancy
Act“), and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector and
Tahsildar for de novo enquiry and fresh adjudication in accordance
with law.
10. W.P.No.36633 of 2018 has been instituted by
Smt.Ch.Sindhu, who claims to be a bona fide purchaser of Plot
No.64 admeasuring 244 Sq. Yds., forming part of the lands
6
comprised in Sy. Nos.47 and 48 of Pedda Amberpet Village. The
grievance of the petitioner therein is that the Sub-Registrar, Pedda
Amberpet, has illegally and arbitrarily refused to register the sale
deed dated 09.04.2018 presented by her for registration due to the
operation of interim orders in the primary writ petitions and the
consequential communication issued by the District Collector
directing that no transactions in respect of the subject lands be
entertained pending adjudication of the said writ petitions.
11. W.P.No.1028 of 2021 has been instituted by Karamchedu
Venkata Narasimha Charyulu, another purchaser of Plot Nos.7 and
8 situated in Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 64/1 of the same Village. The
petitioner therein calls in question the proceedings of the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) revoking the Layout
Regularisation Scheme (LRS) approvals earlier granted in his favour
vide proceedings dated 04.05.2018, as well as the consequential
proceedings initiated by the Municipality, Pedda Amberpet, including
the cancellation of the property assessment, on the premise that the
lands in question were the subject matter of the pending dispute
relating to the protected tenancy rights and the interim orders
passed by this Court in the primary writ petitions.
7
12. Heard Sri Nyayapathi Prashant, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. B.L.Prasuna, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.4 to 6 in W.P.No.36633 of 2018; Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri A.Venkat Laxma Reddy, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Nyayapathi Prashant, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13 in W.P.No.34622 of 2015; Sri
D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A.Pulla
Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Nyayapathi
Prashant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13; Sri
Nyayapathi Prashant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing
Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent No.5, Ms.
B.L.Prasuna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 and perused
the record.
Factual Matrix
13. The subject matter of the present batch of writ petitions
pertains to agricultural lands situated in Pedda Amberpet Village,
formerly Hayathnagar Mandal and presently Abdullapurmet Mandal,
8
Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring in the aggregate Ac.6.09 Gts,
comprised in Sy.Nos.47 and 48. The original pattadars of the said
lands were Gangasani Narasimha Reddy and others (hereinafter
referred to as “the Gangasani family”).
14. It is not in dispute that the said lands had been leased out
for agricultural cultivation and that the tenancy rights of the
cultivating tenants stood protected under the provisions of the
Tenancy Act. Late Sri Penta Reddy @ Pentaiah, father of petitioner
No.1 in W.P.No.34622 of 2015, was the recorded Protected Tenant in
respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.29 Gts in Sy No.48, whereas Late
Sri Lachaiah @ V.Lachi Reddy, father of the petitioner in
W.P.No.34839 of 2015, was the recorded Protected Tenant in respect
of land admeasuring Ac.2.25 Gts in Sy No.47. Their status as
Protected Tenants was duly recognised under the provisions of the
Tenancy Act and evidenced by the relevant Protected Tenancy
records.
15. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the protected Tenancy
rights, the original pattadars, acting independently and without the
knowledge, consent or concurrence of the Protected Tenants, had, as
early as the year 1976, caused the entire extent of Ac.6.09 Gts., to
be sub-divided into 93 residential plots pursuant to a layout
approved by the then Gram Panchayat.
9
16. The following is a list of specific purchasers in the said lay
out along with their respective plot numbers and extents:
Purchasers Plot Extent Link Source
No. (Sq Yds) document
K. 7 356 Doc. GPA Holder of
Jagannath No.13828 of Original Landholders
1990
Smt. 11 358 Doc No. Purchased from a
K.V.V.L. 12028 of previous owner,
Annapurna 1994 Chandrakanth
K. Ramesh 82 267 Doc No.534 GPA Holder of
of 1991 Original Landholders
M Vinay 42 214 Doc Purchased from M.V.
No.10346 of Ramana Rao
2000
Godha Devi 73 267 Doc No.6120 GPA Holder of
of 1991 Original Landholders
K.M. 83 267 Doc GPA Holder of
Sreedharan No.16564 of Original Landholders
1990
17. Subsequently, several of the said plots were alienated in
favour of third parties through registered sale deeds from time to
time. The following is a list of specific purchasers, along with their
respective plot numbers and extents:
Purchasers Plot Extent Link Source
No. (Sq Yds) document
Smt. 64 244 Doc. Original Landholders
K.Sridevi No.11818 of (via GPA holder P.
1990 dated Parankusha Rao)
14.09.1990
Ch. Narsi 64 244 Doc No. 1626 Smt. K. Sridevi
Reddy & of 2013 dated (represented by GPA
Smt. 06.03.2013 holder T.Narsi Reddy)
Thummala
Lalitha
Smt. 64 244 - Ch.Narsi Reddy &
10
Ch.Sindhu Smt. Thummala
Lalitha
18. The said purchasers under the said sale deeds, as well as
their subsequent transferees, eventually figured as respondents in
the proceedings before the revenue authorities, challenged the rights
asserted by the legal heirs of the Protected Tenants. Some of such
purchasers have also instituted the consequential writ petitions,
namely, W.P.No.36633 of 2018 and W.P.No.1028 of 2021, asserting
independent rights flowing from their respective purchases and
questioning the consequential actions taken by the registration and
planning authorities.
19. Following the demise of Late Sri Penta Reddy @ Pentaiah,
his legal heirs, including petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.34622 of 2015,
namely, Poreddy Janga Reddy, and his brother, Sri Poreddy Ram
Reddy (since deceased), instituted proceedings under Section 32(1)
of the Tenancy Act, before the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar,
Hayathnagar Mandal, seeking recognition of their succession to the
rights of the deceased Protected Tenant and recovery of possession
of the protected tenancy lands situated in Sy.No.48. The said
proceedings were registered as Case No.B/15308/2007.
20. Likewise, V. Sathi Reddy, claiming as the legal heir and
successor-in-interest of the deceased Protected Tenant, Late Sri
11
Lachaiah @ V.Lachi Reddy, instituted a similar application under
Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act before the Deputy Collector and
Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, seeking recovery of possession of
the protected tenancy lands comprised in Sy.No.47. The said
proceedings were registered as Case No.B/15309/2007.
21. Upon conducting a detailed enquiry in both the
proceedings, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar
Mandal, by separate orders dated 04.10.2008, recognised the
petitioners as the legal heirs and successors of the respective
Protected Tenants, directed delivery of possession of the protected
tenancy lands admeasuring Ac.1.29 Gts. in Sy.No.48 and
Ac.2.25 Gts in Sy.No.47, respectively, while specifically excluding
such portions of the lands as had already been converted to non-
agricultural use.
22. In pursuance of the said orders, physical possession of the
respective extents was delivered to the petitioners through a
panchanama dated 03.06.2009, and the delivery of possession was
duly recorded by the competent revenue authorities.
23. It is significant to note that the original pattadars, namely,
the members of the Gangasani family, did not question or assail the
orders dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector and
12
Tahsildar by preferring any appeal or other proceedings before the
competent forum. Consequently, the said orders attained finality
insofar as the original pattadars were concerned. The subsequent
challenge came to be mounted not by the original pattadars but by
certain purchasers claiming title through them, whose appeals
before the Joint Collector ultimately gave rise to the primary writ
petitions.
24. Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.10.2008 passed by the
Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, respondents
Nos.5 to 10 in the primary writ petitions, who claim to have
purchased various plots carved out of the subject lands from the
original pattadars, preferred statutory appeals under Section 90(1) of
the Tenancy Act before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District.
25. The said appeals were registered as Appeal Case
Nos.F2/25586/2010 and F2/25588/2010 against the proceedings
in Case Nos.B/15308/2007 and B/15309/2007, respectively.
26. Simultaneously, certain purchasers of the plots had
approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.26402 of 2010 and 26359 of
2010 questioning the proceedings initiated under the Tenancy Act.
By a common order dated 26.10.2010, this Court disposed of the
said writ petitions, relegating the petitioners therein to avail the
13
statutory remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector under the
provisions of the Tenancy Act.
27. Thereafter, the purchasers also instituted C.R.P.Nos.2400
and 2457 of 2011 seeking, inter alia, suspension of the delivery of
possession effected in favour of the legal heirs of the Protected
Tenants pursuant to the orders dated 04.10.2008. This Court, by a
common order dated 14.11.2011, declined to grant any interim
protection against the delivery of possession and disposed of the said
CRPs. Consequently, the possession delivered to the petitioners in
the primary writ petitions pursuant to the proceedings dated
04.10.2008 remained undisturbed.
28. After due process, the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy
District, after a detailed enquiry, passed order dated 01.09.2015 in
Appeal Case Nos.F2/25586/2010 and F2/25588/2010. By the said
order, the Joint Collector allowed the appeals, set aside the
proceedings dated 04.10.2008 of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar,
Hayathnagar Mandal, and remanded both matters to the said
authority, namely, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar
Mandal, for de novo enquiry and fresh disposal in accordance with
law. In this regard, the primary reasons assigned by the Joint
Collector for remand in said order dated 01.09.2015 are extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
14
“ORDER:
Among other the court observed the following basic lapses in the
order of the lower court challenged under appeal.
That the lower court in file no. B/15309/2007 was ordered for
publication of press notification while posted the case for hearing
on 05-07-2008, but obviously failed to do so, which is against the
principle and manner prescribed and as such the lower court order
is challenged under appeal is void.
The lower court also failed to observe and taking into consideration
of letter issued by the Grampanchayat to the effect that there is no
layout granted by the Grampanchayat.
The lower court also failed to observe and appreciate the registered
sale transactions by which the appellants purchased the plots in
the suit land.
In view of the above, the orders passed by the lower court on 04-
10-2008 in Case No.B/15309/2007 challenged under appeal is set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the lower court i.e., The
Dy. Collector & Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, for conduct of
denovo enquiry by issuing notice to all concerned and decide the
matter on merits and as per rules.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed-off and as a sequel the interim
stay granted is also withdrawn.”
29. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the
Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, in Appeal Case
Nos.F2/25586/2010 and F2/25588/2010, the petitioners instituted
W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015, calling in question the legality,
validity and propriety of the said remand order. The impugned order
is assailed as being arbitrary, perverse, contrary to the material on
record, unsupported by proper appreciation of the evidence, passed
without due application of mind, and in disregard of the orders
passed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.2400 and 2457 of 2011.
15
30. Upon admission of the writ petitions on 27.10.2015, this
Court was pleased to grant an interim order staying the operation of
the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Joint Collector.
31. The pendency of the primary writ petitions and the
subsisting interim orders therein consequently gave rise to a fresh
series of proceedings affecting third-party purchasers of plots in the
subject lands. The aforesaid circumstances consequently gave rise to
two independent writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.36633 of 2018 and
W.P.No.1028 of 2021.
32. In so far as W.P.No.36633 of 2018 is concerned, the
petitioner, Smt. Ch. Sindhu, claims to have purchased Plot No.64
admeasuring 244 Sq Yds situated in Sy Nos.47 and 48 of Pedda
Amberpet Village under a registered sale deed, tracing her title
through a chain of registered conveyances originating from the
original pattadars, commencing with Document No.11818 of 1990.
33. The said petitioner presented a sale deed for registration
before the Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet (respondent No.3 therein)
on 13.04.2018 after payment of the requisite stamp duty of
Rs.21,960/- and registration fee of Rs.1,830/-. The Sub-Registrar,
however, declined to register the document by issuing a refusal
check slip on the ground that the subject property forms part of Sy
16
Nos.47 and 48 of Pedda Amberpet Village, which are covered by the
interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.Nos.44486 and
44775 of 2015 in W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015, respectively,
and by placing reliance upon Standing Order No.219(B) of the
Registration Manual, Part-II.
34. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the District
Registrar (respondent No.2 therein) also came to be dismissed by
order dated 25.09.2018, reiterating the grounds assigned by the
Sub-Registrar. It is the petitioner’s case that the interim orders
passed in the primary writ petitions merely stayed the operation of
the remand order passed by the Joint Collector and did not impose
any restraint upon the registering authorities from receiving or
registering documents relating to the subject lands.
35. In so far as W.P.No.1028 of 2021 is concerned, the
petitioner, Karamchedu Venkata Narasimha Charyulu, claims to be
the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.7 and 8 situated in Sy
Nos.47, 48 and 64/1 of Pedda Amberpet Village, having acquired the
same under registered sale deeds. According to the petitioner, the
subject lands had ceased to be agricultural lands and had been
converted into residential house plots much prior to the year 2008,
whereupon several residential constructions had also come into
existence.
17
36. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.151, MA & UD Department, dated
02.11.2015, promulgating the Telangana Regularisation of
Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2015, (for short ‘Layout Rules
2015’) the petitioner applied for regularisation of his plots under the
LRS during the years 2015-16 and remitted the requisite charges.
Upon consideration of the application, the HMDA (respondent No.2
therein) granted LRS approval in favour of the petitioner vide
Proceedings dated 04.05.2018 in respect of the said plots.
37. However, respondent No.3 therein, namely, the
Administrative Officer, HMDA, issued a show cause notice dated
03.01.2019 alleging that the petitioner had suppressed the material
fact of the pendency of W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015, arising
out of the tenancy dispute relating to the subject lands, while
submitting his application under the LRS. The petitioner submitted
his explanation to the said show cause notice. Nevertheless,
respondent No.2-HMDA, by proceedings vide Letter dated
03.09.2019, revoked the LRS approval earlier granted in favour of
the petitioner on the ground that the pendency of the aforesaid
proceedings had been suppressed and that the approval was liable
to be revoked in terms of Clause 21 of the Layout Rules, 2015.
38. Consequent upon the revocation of the LRS approval,
respondent No.5, namely, the Municipality, Pedda Amberpet,
18
cancelled the property assessment standing in the petitioner’s name
vide Roc.No.A1/5517/2020 dated 14.12.2020 and initiated
consequential action, including issuance of notices proposing
demolition of the compound wall and temporary shed existing on the
subject plots. The petitioner assails both the order dated 03.09.2019
passed by the HMDA revoking the LRS approval and the
consequential proceedings initiated by the Municipality as being
arbitrary, suffering from non-application of mind, violative of the
principles of natural justice, and constituting a colourable exercise
of power.
Submissions on behalf of petitioners in W.P.Nos.34622 and
34839 of 2015
39. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced the
following submissions as under:
i) That the proceedings dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Deputy
Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, in Case
Nos.B/15308/2007 and B/15309/2007 were passed after
conducting a detailed enquiry, issuing due notice to the
concerned parties and effecting publication in accordance with
the Tenancy Act. The finding recorded therein directing
delivery of possession to the legal heirs of the Protected
19Tenants is stated to be a finding of fact based upon the
revenue records and other material available on record, which
could not have been interfered with by the Joint Collector in
the absence of cogent and legally sustainable reasons.
ii) That the observation of the Joint Collector that no publication
of notice had been effected is factually incorrect and contrary
to the record, as the proceedings file itself evidences due
publication. It is, therefore, argued that the remand order is
founded upon a factual premise not borne out by the record
and is consequently liable to be set aside.
iii) That the Joint Collector committed a jurisdictional error in
entertaining the appeals preferred by the plot purchasers,
when the legal heirs and successors of the original pattadars,
namely, the Gangasani family, had not themselves preferred
any appeal against the proceedings dated 04.10.2008.
iv) That purchasers of plots formed under a Gram Panchayat
layout, allegedly developed without the knowledge or consent
of the Protected Tenants, cannot claim rights superior to those
of the Protected Tenants or their legal heirs under the
provisions of the Tenancy Act, which is a beneficial welfare
legislation enacted for the protection of cultivating tenants.
20
v) That this Court, while disposing of C.R.P.Nos.2400 and 2457
of 2011, declined to interfere with the delivery of possession
effected in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the
proceedings dated 04.10.2008. It is, therefore, contended that
the impugned remand order, by directing a de novo enquiry,
virtually reopens an issue relating to possession which had
already attained finality and had been permitted to remain
undisturbed by this Court.
vi) That one of the applicants before the Deputy Collector,
namely, Sri P. Ram Reddy, had expired even prior to the
institution of the appeals before the Joint Collector.
Notwithstanding the same, the Joint Collector entertained the
appeals and proceeded to pass the impugned order against a
deceased person without bringing his legal representatives on
record. It is, therefore, argued that the proceedings, to that
extent, are non est in the eye of law and are liable to be
declared void.
vii) That the Joint Collector failed to properly appreciate the
documentary evidence available on record and adopted a
mechanical approach while setting aside the well-reasoned
orders of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar. According to the
learned counsel, the impugned order suffers from patent non-
21
application of mind, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and
is, therefore, liable to be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
viii) The petitioners, in support of their case, have placed reliance
upon the following decisions:
b) Kotaiah and another v. Property Association of the
Baptist Churches (Pvt) Ltd 2
c) Sada and etc v. The Tahsildhar Utnoor, Adilabad District
and another 3
d) Thota Sridhar Reddy and others v. Mandala
Ramulamma and others 4
e) A.Kondal Yadav and others v. B. Chittamma and others 5
Submissions on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015
40. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue
Respondents (respondent Nos.1 to 4) made the following
submissions:
i) That the common order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Joint
Collector is only an order of remand and does not finally
adjudicate upon or determine the rights of the parties.
According to the learned Government Pleader, where the
1 AIR 2016 SC 3810
2 (1989) 3 SCC 424
3 AIR 1988 AP 77
4 (2021) 16 SCC 1
5 2024 (4) ALT 200 (TS)
22
appellate authority finds that relevant facts, material evidence
or necessary parties have not been adequately considered by
the original authority, an order remanding the matter for de
novo enquiry and fresh adjudication is both justified and
conducive to a fair and comprehensive determination of the
dispute.
ii) That the plot purchasers, having acquired interests in the
subject properties under registered sale deeds executed prior
to the initiation of the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, are
persons having a direct and substantial interest in the subject
matter of the dispute and, therefore, constitute necessary and
proper parties to the proceedings.
iii) That the Joint Collector was justified in directing a
comprehensive de novo enquiry so as to examine the
competing claims of all stakeholders, including those of the
subsequent purchasers, in the light of the registered
conveyances and the material available on record.
Submissions on behalf of private respondents (plot purchasers)
in W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015
41. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, who
claim to be plot purchasers carved out of the subject lands, made
the following submissions:
23
i) That respondent Nos.5 to 10 are ‘persons aggrieved’ within the
meaning of the Tenancy Act, as the orders dated 04.10.2008
passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar directly affect
their rights and possession over the plots purchased by them
under registered sale deeds from the original pattadars. It is
contended that the expression ‘person aggrieved’ is not
confined to the original pattadars or protected tenants, but
extends to every person whose legal rights or interests in the
subject land are prejudicially affected. According to the
learned counsel, the original pattadars had already divested
themselves of all their rights by alienating the lands during the
years 1990-91 through registered GPA transactions, and the
purchasers had acquired independent rights in the properties.
ii) That the appeals before the Joint Collector did not abate on
account of the death of Sri Poreddy Ram Reddy. According to
the learned counsel, the right to sue survived against the
remaining legal heir, namely, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.34622
of 2015. Reliance is placed upon the principles embodied in
Order XXII of the CPC, to contend that abatement would arise
only where the right to sue does not survive against the
remaining parties.
24
iii) That the petitioners’ counsel failed to discharge the obligation
under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC to inform the Court about
the death and furnish particulars of the legal representatives,
despite a memo dated 07.04.2011 having been filed by the
respondents seeking such particulars. It is, therefore, argued
that the petitioners cannot now assail the appellate
proceedings on the ground that one of the parties had died
prior to the disposal of the appeals.
iv) That the subject lands had ceased to be agricultural lands
several decades prior to the initiation of the proceedings under
Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that the original
pattadars had formed a Gram Panchayat-approved layout
consisting of 93 residential plots in the year 1976 and had
subsequently alienated the plots through registered sale deeds
during the years 1990-91. Reliance is placed upon the pahanis
from the years 1958-59 to 2005-06 to contend that Sy Nos.47
and 48 have long been classified as house sites and residential
plots, with no entries indicating cultivation by protected
tenants or agricultural operations.
v) It is also pointed out that even the proceedings dated
04.10.2008 of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar expressly
excluded lands already converted to non-agricultural use from
25the order directing delivery of possession. According to the
learned counsel, the entire extent of Ac.1.29 Gts in Sy No.48
had already been converted into house sites and, therefore,
the order directing delivery of possession was incapable of
implementation.
vi) That the copy of the proceedings dated 04.10.2008 produced
by petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.34622 of 2015 along with the writ
petition differs materially from the original proceedings
forming part of the official record. According to the learned
counsel, the copy filed before this Court omits the condition
excluding lands already converted to non-agricultural
purposes, whereas the original proceedings available in the
record specifically incorporate such exclusion. It is alleged that
the petitioners obtained the interim order by suppressing
material facts and relying upon a manipulated document,
thereby committing fraud upon the Court.
vii) While arguing the legality of the succession proceedings under
Section 40 of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that, although
the MRO recorded the existence of seven legal heirs of late
Penta Reddy @ Pentaiah, succession was recognized only in
favour of two sons without any relinquishment, partition or
adjudication regarding the rights of the remaining heirs.
26
Similarly, in the proceedings relating to late Lachaiah,
restoration of possession was granted for an extent of Ac.2.25
Gts, though the application was stated to be only for Ac.1.13
Gts. It is, therefore, contended that the succession
proceedings are ex facie illegal.
viii) That the applications under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act,
instituted in the year 2007 alleging dispossession “long ago”,
were hopelessly belated and did not disclose either the date or
the circumstances of the alleged dispossession. According to
the learned counsel, although the Act does not prescribe a
specific period of limitation, such applications are nevertheless
required to be instituted within a reasonable time, particularly
where third parties have altered their position by purchasing
plots, raising constructions and investing substantial
amounts. It is also submitted that no evidence was produced
to establish continuous cultivation, payment of lease amounts
or continued possession by the protected tenants.
ix) That the proceedings under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act
were concluded without issuing individual notices to the
respondents, who were admittedly in possession of the plots.
According to the learned counsel, mere publication of notice
cannot substitute personal notice to persons in actual
27
possession and, consequently, the proceedings stand vitiated
for violation of the principles of natural justice.
x) That the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are
distinguishable on facts. According to the learned counsel, the
judgments relied upon concern cases involving admitted
landlord-tenant relationships or proceedings where ownership
certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act had already
been issued, whereas the present case concerns proceedings
under Section 32 in which the very existence of the tenancy
rights is in dispute and the proceedings have not attained
finality.
xi) That the actions of the HMDA and the Municipality in granting
LRS approvals, building permissions and municipal
assessments demonstrate that the lands had already lost their
agricultural character. It is further submitted that the
subsequent revocation of the LRS approval granted to the
petitioner in W.P.No.1028 of 2021 is in consonance with
Clause 21 of the Layout Rules, 2015, having regard to the
pendency of the present litigation concerning the subject
lands.
xii) The respondents, in support of their case, have placed reliance
upon the following decisions:
28
a) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jagannath
(dead) by LRs and others 6
c) Ausali Siddiramulu (died) per LRs and others v. Ausali
Dubbaiah (died) per LRs and others 8
d) Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa (now deceased) and
others v. Satish Chandra (now deceased) 9
e) Pulli Ramaiah and another v. Potta Nagobhushanama
and others 10
f) Syed Abdul Majeed and others v. Joint Collector-II,
Ranga Reddy district and others 11
g) K.Rukka Reddy v. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
district 12
h) B.Malla Reddy and others v. The State of Telangana and
others 13
i) P.Anjaiah and others v. State of Telangana and others 14
j) Chinnnaboini Narsaiah and others v. The Tahsildar,
Mahabubabad, Warangal district and others 15
l) Nomula Rachaiah v. Golla Narsimhulu and another 17
m) Unknown v. Joint Collector-I 18
n) Padala Pentaiah v. Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy
district and others 196
AIR 1994 SC 853
7 1995 (2) ALT 32
8 2014 (1) ALD 550
9 2025 (2) ALD 80 (SC)
10 2001 (1) ALD 525 (DB)
11 2006 (5) ALD 348
12 W.A.No.149 of 2007 dated 08.11.2021
13 2021 (5) ALD 595 (TS)
14 2025 (2) ALD 171 (TS) (DB)
15 W.A.Nos.19 and 20 of 1978 dated 07.04.1978
16 2005 (5) ALD 9
17 (2009) 3 ALD 774
18 W.P.No.3815 of 2011 dated 25.09.2012
29
p) Vorla Ramachandra Reddy and another v. Joint
Collector-I, Ranga Reddy district and others 21Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.36633 of
2018
42. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.36633 of 2018 made the following submissions:
i) That the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction under the
Registration Act, 1908, to refuse registration of a document
merely on the ground that writ proceedings are pending before
this Court in relation to the survey numbers in which the
subject property is situated. According to the learned counsel,
the Registration Act is a self-contained enactment prescribing
the circumstances under which registration may be refused,
and pendency of civil proceedings or writ petitions concerning
the property does not constitute a statutory ground for refusal
of registration.
ii) That the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.34622
and 34839 of 2015 was directed only against the operation of
the remand order passed by the Joint Collector and did not
19 2013 (2) ALD 262
20 2015 (4) ALD 490
21 2021 (5) ALD 477 (TS) (DB)
30impose any restraint upon the registering authorities from
receiving or registering documents pertaining to the subject
lands. It is, therefore, argued that the Sub-Registrar
erroneously construed the interim order as prohibiting
registration of documents, thereby giving the said order an
effect far beyond its true scope and tenor.
iii) That the petitioner has derived title under a complete, valid
and unbroken chain of registered conveyances commencing
with registered Document No.11818 of 1990 executed by the
original pattadars through their GPA Holder, Sri P.
Parankusha Rao, followed by subsequent registered
transactions, including Document No.1626 of 2013 executed
in favour of the petitioner’s vendors, culminating in the
execution of the sale deed sought to be registered in favour of
the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied
with all the statutory requirements under the Registration Act,
1908, including payment of the requisite stamp duty and
registration fee, and that no statutory impediment existed for
registration of the document.
iv) That the reliance placed by the Sub-Registrar upon Standing
Order No.219(B) of the Registration Manual, Part-II, is wholly
misconceived, as executive instructions contained in the
31
Registration Manual cannot override or curtail the statutory
rights conferred under the Registration Act, 1908. It is further
submitted that the registering authority is not competent to
adjudicate disputed questions of title or refuse registration on
grounds dehors the provisions of the Registration Act, and the
impugned refusal check slip is, therefore, wholly without
jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
43. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondents in W.P.No.36633 of 2018 submits that the Sub-
Registrar, Pedda Amberpet, acted with due caution in refusing to
receive and register the document, having regard to the pendency of
W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015 before this Court, wherein the
title to and possession of the lands comprised in Sy Nos.47 and 48 of
Pedda Amberpet Village are the subject matter of adjudication. It is
submitted that the action of the Sub-Registrar was intended to
prevent the creation of further third-party rights during the
pendency of the primary writ petitions and to maintain the existing
state of affairs until the disputes relating to the subject lands attain
finality.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.1028 of 2021
44. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.1028 of 2021 made the following submissions:
32
i) That G.O.Ms.No.151, MA & UD Department, dated
02.11.2015, introducing the Layout Rules, 2015 and the LRS,
is a beneficial scheme intended to regularise unapproved and
illegal layouts. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner
had submitted an application under the said Scheme, remitted
the requisite charges and, upon due consideration, the HMDA
granted LRS approval vide proceedings dated 04.05.2018. It is
submitted that the grant of such approval conferred a
legitimate expectation upon the petitioner, which could not
have been defeated by an arbitrary exercise of power.
ii) That Clause 21 of the Layout Rules, 2015, relied upon by the
HMDA for revoking the approval, has no application to the
facts of the present case. It is argued that there was no order
passed by any competent Court restraining the HMDA from
processing or granting LRS approvals in respect of lands
situated in Sy Nos.47 and 48 of Pedda Amberpet Village. It is
further submitted that the proceedings dated 04.10.2008 of
the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar themselves specifically
excluded lands already converted to non-agricultural use from
the order directing delivery of possession. According to the
learned counsel, the plots in respect of which LRS approval
was granted fall within such converted lands and, therefore,
33
the approval was not hit by any judicial order or statutory
prohibition.
iii) That, although the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation
in response to the show cause notice dated 03.01.2019, the
same was not duly considered by the HMDA before passing
the proceedings dated 03.09.2019. It is contended that the
impugned order of revocation is a non-speaking order, suffers
from non-application of mind, and has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice, as it fails to
consider or deal with the specific factual and legal objections
raised by the petitioner in his reply.
iv) That the consequential proceedings initiated by respondent
No.5-Municipality, Pedda Amberpet, cancelling the property
assessment vide Roc.No.A1/5517/2020 dated 14.12.2020 are
wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of
the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. It is submitted that,
once the assessment had been validly made and property tax
had been accepted, the Municipality could not have cancelled
the assessment without adhering to the procedure prescribed
under law. It is further submitted that the impugned
municipal action is merely consequential to the illegal
revocation of the LRS approval, is actuated by mala fides at
34
the instance of private complainants, and is therefore liable to
be set aside.
Submissions of the implead petitioners in W.P.No.1028 of 2021
45. Learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioners in
W.P.No.1028 of 2021, made the following submissions:
i) That the HMDA was fully justified in revoking the LRS
approval granted in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner
had failed to disclose the pendency of W.P.Nos.34622 and
34839 of 2015 and the interim orders operating therein while
seeking regularisation under the LRS. According to the learned
counsel, the suppression of such material facts squarely
attracted Clause 21 of the Layout Rules, 2015, warranting
revocation of the approval.
ii) That the applications seeking LRS approval pertained to plots
forming part of a layout allegedly carved out by the original
pattadars in derogation of the subsisting rights of the
Protected Tenants under the Tenancy Act. It is, therefore,
argued that no regularisation of such layout or recognition of
rights flowing therefrom could have been granted unless and
until the dispute relating to the protected tenancy rights over
the subject lands was finally adjudicated.
35
46. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged and
the material on record, including the affidavits, written submissions
and counters filed.
Consideration by this Court
47. This Court considers it appropriate to delineate the scope of
the present batch of writ petitions. W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of
2015 are the principal writ petitions challenging the order dated
01.09.2015 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District,
remanding the tenancy proceedings for de novo enquiry, whereas
W.P.Nos.36633 of 2018 and 1028 of 2021 are consequential thereto
and arise out of the pendency of the tenancy dispute and the interim
orders passed therein. Since the issues involved in the latter writ
petitions are dependent upon the adjudication of the former, this
Court proceeds first to examine the scope of Protected Tenancy and
the validity of the Joint Collector order.
The Nature and Scope of the Protected Tenancy
48. The Tenancy Act, is a beneficial welfare legislation enacted
for the protection of the tiller of the soil. Section 32(1) thereof
provides for restoration of possession to a protected tenant who has
been unlawfully dispossessed. The rights conferred under the Act
are statutory in nature and ordinarily cannot be defeated by
36
alienations effected by the pattadar without the consent of the
protected tenant. At the same time, the protection afforded under
the Act extends only to agricultural lands. If the land in question has
lawfully ceased to retain its agricultural character and has been
validly converted to non-agricultural use in accordance with law, the
applicability of the provisions of the Act necessarily falls for
examination.
49. One aspect which assumes significance in the present case
is that the proceedings dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Deputy
Collector and Tahsildar, on which the petitioners place reliance,
themselves directed delivery of possession of the protected tenancy
lands only after excluding the lands already converted to non-
agricultural purposes. The said exclusion indicates that the primary
revenue authority had noticed the existence of converted portions
within the subject lands.
50. It is the specific case of the respondents that the entirety of
Sy Nos.47 and 48 had already been converted into house-site plots
much prior to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 32 of
the Act. In support thereof, reliance has been placed upon the
pahani records from the years 1958-59 onwards, the encumbrance
certificates reflecting a series of registered transactions, the grant of
LRS approvals by the HMDA, and the building permissions issued by
37
the Pedda Amberpet Municipality. According to the respondents,
these materials demonstrate that the lands had ceased to retain
their agricultural character long before the proceedings initiated in
the years 2007-08.
51. If it is ultimately found that the lands in Sy Nos.47 and 48
had lawfully ceased to be agricultural lands prior to the initiation of
the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act, the applicability of the
said provision would necessarily fall for consideration. Equally, if
any portion of the lands continued to retain their agricultural
character, the statutory rights, if any, claimed by the protected
tenants would have to be examined in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. These are essentially questions of fact,
requiring an examination of the relevant revenue records, the nature
and extent of the alleged conversion, the legality thereof, and the
identity of the lands claimed by the respective parties. This Court,
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, cannot ordinarily undertake such an exercise as if sitting as
the primary fact-finding authority.
Validity of the Joint Collector’s Order dated 01.09.2015
52. This Court shall first advert to the preliminary objection
raised by the petitioners that respondent Nos.5 to 10, being
38
purchasers of individual plots claiming through the original
pattadars, lacked the locus standi to maintain the appeals before the
Joint Collector under Section 90(1) of the Tenancy Act.
53. Section 90(1) of the Act provides as under:
“Section 90. Appeals and revisions
(1) From every order other than an interim order passed by the
Tahsildar or the Deputy Collector or the Tribunal under this Act, an
appeal shall lie to the Collector and the orders of the Collector on
such appeal shall be final.
(2) From every original order other than an interim order passed by
the Collector, an appeal shall lie to the Board of Revenue and the
order of the Board of Revenue on such appeal shall be final.(3) There shall be no appeal from any interim order passed by the
Tahsildar or Deputy Collector or Tribunal or Collector in any case,
but an application for revision on the grounds mentioned in section
91 shall lie from an interim order passed by the Tahsildar or
Deputy Collector to the Collector.”
54. According to the petitioners, such right is confined to the
original pattadars, who alone were parties to the proceedings before
the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar. The respondents, on the other
hand, contend that, having purchased plots comprised in the
subject survey numbers under registered transactions and claiming
to be in possession thereof, they are persons whose rights are
directly affected by the orders directing restoration of possession
and, therefore, fall within the ambit of the expression ‘aggrieved
party’.
39
55. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of
the view that it is not appropriate, at this stage, to render any
conclusive finding on the question whether respondent Nos.5 to 10
possess the requisite locus standi to maintain the statutory appeals
under Section 90(1) of the Act. The said question is intrinsically
connected with the nature and extent of the rights claimed by the
respondents, the validity of the transactions relied upon by them,
and the factual issues that are required to be examined in the
course of the de novo enquiry.
56. However, the petitioners principally assail the order of
remand on the ground that the Joint Collector proceeded on the
premise that the controversy warranted only an examination of
certain procedural lapses in the proceedings before the Deputy
Collector and Tahsildar, without addressing the material issues
arising in the appeals. The impugned order, inter alia, refers to the
following three aspects:
i) The alleged non-publication of the press notification,
ii) Non-consideration of the communication issued by the Gram
Panchayat, and
iii) Non-consideration of the registered sale deeds relied upon by
the appellants.
40
57. According to the petitioners, the Joint Collector, while
exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Tenancy
Act, was required to adjudicate the jurisdictional objections and
other issues arising in the appeals, including the maintainability of
the appeals, rather than remanding the matter solely on the
aforesaid grounds. This Court finds that the impugned order does
not advert to several material objections raised by the parties,
including the maintainability of the appeals, the question of delay,
the effect of the death of one of the parties during the pendency of
the proceedings, and other jurisdictional issues. Nor does the order
delineate the precise scope of the proposed de novo enquiry. Being
the first appellate authority under the statute, the Joint Collector
was expected to consider and record findings on all material issues
arising in the appeals before directing a remand. Thus, the
impugned order clearly demonstrates an abdication of appellate
responsibility.
58. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained in its present form.
Accordingly, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the
merits of the rival contentions, all issues are left open to be
considered afresh by the Joint Collector, who shall adjudicate the
41
appeals independently, after considering all the contentions raised
by the parties and in accordance with law.
Effect of the death of a party during the pendency of the Appeal
59. In regard to the contention that Sri Poreddy Ram Reddy,
one of the legal heirs in Case No.B/15308/2007, died during the
pendency of the appeal and that the Joint Collector proceeded to
pass the order dated 01.09.2015 without bringing his legal
representatives on record, thereby vitiating the appellate
proceedings, the respondents contend that the appeal did not abate
as the right to sue survived against the remaining legal heir and
that, despite calling upon the petitioners to furnish the particulars of
the legal representatives for substitution, no such particulars were
furnished. The petitioners, however, maintain that the proceedings
stood vitiated on account of non-substitution of the legal
representatives of the deceased.
60. It is to be noted that it is also not appropriate to render any
conclusive finding on the effect of the death of Sri Poreddy Ram
Reddy on the maintainability or validity of the appellate proceedings.
The said issue involves questions touching upon the procedural
validity of the proceedings and the effect of non-substitution of legal
42
representatives, which can appropriately be examined by the Joint
Collector in the course of the de novo adjudication.
61. Accordingly, all contentions of the parties relating to the
effect of the death of Sri Poreddy Ram Reddy, the necessity of
substitution of his legal representatives, and the legal consequences
arising therefrom are left open. The Joint Collector shall, before
proceeding further with Appeal Case No.F2/25586/2010, ensure
that all necessary legal representatives are brought on record, and
thereafter consider the aforesaid issues, if required, in accordance
with law.
62. Insofar as the contention regarding non-application of mind
on the part of the Joint Collector in recording that publication of
notice was not effected is concerned, this Court is of the view that
such aspect also forms part of the issues arising in the remanded
proceedings. Since the entire matter is being remitted for fresh
consideration, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record
any conclusive finding on the correctness of the said observation.
63. Further, all contentions relating to the adequacy of
publication, issuance of individual notices to persons claiming
possession, and compliance with the principles of natural justice are
likewise left open to be considered by the Joint Collector while
43
undertaking the de novo adjudication, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to all affected parties and upon examination
of the original records.
The Allegation of a manipulated order
64. It is apposite to note that the copy of the proceedings dated
04.10.2008 in File No.B/15308/2007 produced by the petitioner
along with the writ petition (at page No. 22) does not contain the
stipulation excluding lands already converted to non-agricultural
purposes, whereas the copy forming part of the original record and
the paper book (at page No.153) filed by the respondents contains
such stipulation.
65. This Court refrains from recording any conclusive finding on
the said controversy in the present proceedings. However, the
competent authority, while undertaking the de novo enquiry
pursuant to the remand, shall verify the original record and
ascertain the contents of the proceedings dated 04.10.2008. If it is
found that the exclusion relating to lands converted to non-
agricultural use formed part of the original proceedings, the
authority shall identify the extent of such converted land and
thereafter determine whether any agricultural land continued to
44
subsist so as to attract the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy
and Act.
66. Insofar as the question of delay is concerned, the
respondents have relied upon Ponnala Narsing Rao v. Nallolla
Pentaiah 22, to contend that an application under Section 32 of the
Tenancy Act must be made within a reasonable time, particularly
where third-party rights and equities have intervened. It is their
specific case that the application in Case No.B/15308/2007 was
filed only in the year 2007 with a vague averment that the protected
tenant had been dispossessed “long ago”, without specifying the date
or circumstances of such dispossession, despite the lands having
been converted into house-site plots and alienated several years
earlier, pursuant to which third-party purchasers have remained in
possession and effected constructions. This contention raises a
relevant issue which shall also be considered by the competent
authority in the de novo enquiry while examining the effect of the
delay, if any, the equities claimed to have accrued in favour of third
parties.
W.P.No.36633 of 2018 — Refusal of Registration
22
(1998) 9 SCC 183
45
67. The petitioner in W.P.No.36633 of 2018 challenges the
refusal of the Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet, and the District
Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, to register the sale deed dated
09.04.2018, the refusal having been founded on the pendency of
W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015 and Standing Order No.219(B) of
the Registration Manual Part-II.
68. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the powers of the
Registering Officer are circumscribed by the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908, and registration cannot be refused except on
grounds recognised under the statute. The mere pendency of
proceedings relating to the property does not, by itself, constitute a
valid ground to decline registration. The Registering Officer is not
vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title
or possession, nor can an executive instruction, such as Standing
Order No.219(B) of the Registration Manual Part-II, enlarge the
statutory grounds for refusal or override the provisions of the
69. It is also to be note that the interim orders passed in
W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015 merely stayed the operation of
the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Joint Collector. The said
interim orders do not impose any restraint upon the registration of
documents in respect of the subject property, and no such
46
prohibition can be inferred by implication. Accordingly, the
proceedings dated 02.08.2018 of the Sub-Registrar, Pedda
Amberpet, and the appellate order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, are liable to be set aside.
The Registering Authority shall receive and process the document
presented by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908. It is, however, made clear that registration of
the document shall neither confer nor determine title, and the rights
of the parties shall remain subject to the final adjudication of the
tenancy dispute.
W.P.No.1028 of 2021 — Revocation of LRS approval
70. The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 03.09.2019
whereby HMDA revoked the LRS approval granted on 04.05.2018 by
invoking Clause 21 of the Layout Rules, 2015, on the ground that
the subject property was involved in pending court proceedings. In
this regard it is apposite to note, that the revocation proceeds on the
premise that the pendency of W.P.Nos.34622 and 34839 of 2015,
and the interim orders passed therein, ipso facto attracted Clause 21
of the Layout Rules, 2015. However, the interim orders merely
stayed the operation of the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the
Joint Collector and did not expressly restrain HMDA from processing
or granting LRS approvals. The explanation submitted by the
47
petitioner in response to the show cause notice specifically raised
this aspect, but the impugned order does not disclose any
meaningful consideration thereof. The absence of due consideration
of the petitioner’s explanation renders the order vulnerable on the
ground of non-application of mind.
71. The consequential proceedings of the Municipality, Pedda
Amberpet, cancelling the property assessment on the basis of the
HMDA revocation order are also liable to be set aside, being purely
consequential in nature. At the same time, this Court is conscious
that the rights claimed by the petitioner are intrinsically connected
with the outcome of the tenancy dispute, which is the subject matter
of the principal writ petitions. Consequently, while the impugned
proceedings dated 03.09.2019 of HMDA and the consequential
proceedings dated 14.12.2020 of the Municipality are set aside, the
matter is remitted to HMDA for fresh consideration in accordance
with law, keeping in view the final outcome of the tenancy
proceedings. It is made clear that any benefit that may ultimately
accrue to the petitioner shall remain subject to the final adjudication
of the tenancy dispute.
Conclusion
72. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the remand order dated 01.09.2015 does
48
not delineate the scope of the de novo enquiry nor does it address
certain material aspects arising for consideration. Accordingly, while
affirming the necessity for a de novo enquiry, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the impugned order to the limited extent of
the directions issued therein and remit the matter to the Joint
Collector to undertake a fresh adjudication in accordance with the
observations and directions contained in this judgment, after
impleading all necessary parties and affording them due opportunity
of hearing, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any
observations made in this common order on the disputed questions
of fact.
73. In the result, W.P.Nos.34622 & 34839 of 2015; 36633 of
2018 and 1028 of 2021 are disposed of with the following terms:
i) The order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Joint Collector-I,
Ranga Reddy District, in Appeal Case Nos.F2/25586/2010
and F2/25588/2010 is hereby set aside.
ii) The aforesaid appeal cases are remitted to the Joint Collector-
I, Ranga Reddy District, for fresh adjudication in accordance
with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to
all necessary and affected parties, including the legal heirs of
the protected tenants, the legal heirs of the original pattadars,
and the plot purchasers claiming interest in the subject
property.
49
iii) Before proceeding with Appeal Case No.F2/25586/2010, the
Joint Collector shall ensure that the legal representatives of
late Sri Poreddy Ram Reddy are brought on record in
accordance with law.
iv) The Joint Collector shall consider the following issues:
1) Whether the land in Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 64/1 Pedda
Amberpet Village has been converted to non-
agricultural purposes and has lost agricultural
character? And if so, when?
2) Whether the PT rights claimed by the petitioner in
primary writ petitions are subsisting and valid?
3) Whether the succession proceedings under Section 40
of the Tenancy Act in Proceedings No.B/761/2002
dated 25.11.2004 are valid and whether the parties
are required to establish their succession before the
competent Civil Court before proceeding further with
the applications under Section 32 of the Act?
4) Whether the application for restoration of possession
under Section 32 of the Act is barred by delay and
laches?
5) Whether the alleged protected tenant was in
possession of the subject land or carried out
agricultural operations?
6) Whether the copy filed by the petitioner in primary
writ petitions before this Court is a manipulated
copy?
50
v) The Joint Collector shall issue individual notices to all persons
found to be in actual possession of any portion of the subject
land and shall complete the fresh adjudication and pass a
reasoned order, preferably within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vi) The interim order dated 27.10.2015 granted in W.P.Nos.34622
and 34839 of 2015 shall stand vacated.
vii) The proceedings dated 02.08.2018 of the Sub-Registrar, Pedda
Amberpet, and the appellate order dated 25.09.2018 of the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, refusing registration
of the petitioner’s sale deed, are hereby set aside?
viii) The District Registrar and the Sub-Registrar concerned shall
receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, subject to compliance with all statutory
requirements. It is, however, made clear that such registration
shall neither confer nor adjudicate title or possession, and
shall remain subject to the final outcome of the tenancy
proceedings.
ix) The proceedings dated 03.09.2019 issued by the
Administrative Officer (BK), HMDA, revoking the LRS approval
granted on 04.05.2018, together with the consequential
proceedings dated 14.12.2020 of the Pedda Amberpet
Municipality cancelling the property assessment, are hereby
set aside.
51
x) The LRS approval granted to the petitioner shall stand
restored. However, neither HMDA nor any other competent
authority shall grant any final building permission, plan
approval, occupancy certificate or similar development
permission in respect of the subject plots until the tenancy
proceedings, as remanded herein, attain finality. Upon such
adjudication, the competent authorities shall take
consequential action strictly in accordance with law.
xi) The petitioner in W.P.No.1028 of 2021 shall not undertake any
further construction or create any additional third-party rights
over the subject property pending disposal of the remanded
proceedings.
xii) It is clarified that the findings contained in this order are
based on material on record and are made only for the
purpose of deciding the writ petition. The Joint Collector shall
not be influenced by any of the observations made in this
order and shall adjudicate the matter independently on its
own merits.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 17.07.2026
ssp/szt
