Telangana HC Sets Aside District Collector's Order on Section 22-A Prohibited List, Directs Fresh Representation to State Committee
Justice T. Madhavi Devi set aside a 2019 District Collector order keeping plots in the Section 22-A prohibited list and directed the petitioner to approach the newly constituted State Committee for adjudication within four months.
The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in a common order covering seven writ petitions, has set aside a District Collector's order dated 06.07.2019 that rejected a landowner's representation for deletion of Plot Nos. 45, 46 and 48 in Survey No. 274/1, Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Justice T. Madhavi Devi, sitting singly, held that the factual question of whether the land is private patta land or Government land cannot be resolved by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it requires appreciation and verification of facts. The petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation to the Committee constituted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 23.08.2025, which must pass appropriate orders within four months of receipt of the representation. A status quo order was also issued in the interim.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, D. Bheem Rao, held a Registered General Power of Attorney No. 410/1983, dated 31.03.1983, executed by four persons claiming ownership of Plot Nos. 45, 46, 47 and 48 in the layout formed by Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited in Survey No. 274/1. The chain of title traced in the petition ran from a registered sale deed of 1964 in favour of Smt. Zebunnisa Begum, a subsequent sale deed No. 240/1996 in favour of two individuals, and then a registered sale deed No. 3139 of 1979 in favour of the Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The Society had in turn executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner for Plot No. 46, admeasuring 1,133 square yards.
The petitioner contended that the Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society had converted the land into plots, that houses were constructed with permissions from the Gram Panchayat and later the municipality, that property taxes and NALA conversion fees were collected by the revenue authorities, and that the petitioner had even mortgaged the property to Vysya Bank under Doc. No. 12729/2007 and leased it to State Bank of India. New house numbers, H.No. 35-1-C and 35-1-E, were assigned after the upgradation of Quthbullapur Municipality.
The petitioner's grievance was that the plots were included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act at the instance of persons who were allegedly squatting on the property and seeking to acquire it at a low price. He alleged that a church had been constructed unauthorisedly by Hosanna Mandir on Plot No. 46 and that respondents No. 5 to 9 were preventing him from removing the illegal constructions.
The Section 22-A Prohibited List and Prior Litigation
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 empowers the State Government to notify properties whose registration is prohibited. Clause (b) covers properties owned by the State or Central Government, while Clause (e) covers properties in which the State or Central Government, local bodies, or religious and charitable institutions have avowed or accrued interests, subject to a gazette notification.
The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No. 36915/2018 challenging the inclusion of his land in the prohibited list. By order dated 11.10.2018, the High Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2018 for deletion within three to six months. When that direction was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 650/2019. It was only after notice in the contempt case that the District Collector directed his subordinates to submit a report. The Tahsildar's report was forwarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri, on 03.07.2019, and the District Collector passed the impugned order on 06.07.2019 rejecting the representation.
The petitioner also filed W.P.No. 542/2019 when revenue authorities attempted to conduct a survey without notice. That petition was disposed of on 28.01.2019 with a direction to follow the prescribed procedure before conducting any survey.
The High Court, by order dated 11.09.2019, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2019 in the present writ petition.
Rival Contentions on Land Character
The petitioner's counsel argued that the District Collector had not conducted any independent inquiry and had merely relied on the Tahsildar's report, which was alleged to be biased and prepared to assist respondents No. 5 to 9. The counsel pointed out that the revenue records from 1964 onwards showed the names of private pattedars and subsequent transferees, that taxes had been collected by the revenue authorities, and that the Tahsildar's own report acknowledged that Ac. 3.19 gts. of land in Survey No. 274 was covered by houses and roads. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the District Collector's failure to consider these facts amounted to non-application of mind.
The Government's counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4 on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, stated that as per the Sethwar and Sessala Pahani for the year 1955-58, the entire land in Survey No. 274, admeasuring Ac. 6.07 gts., was classified as “Poramboke Sarkari” and therefore Government land. The Government stated that the entry of one Sri Gopal Singh's name in the Pahani for 1963-64 was made by the then patwari without any assignment order from a competent authority. It further stated that permissions granted by the Gram Panchayat or municipality over Government land are null and void, and that collection of taxes or NALA tax does not confer any title. The Government also raised the T.S. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, contending that even if the land were treated as assigned land, any sale would be in violation of that Act.
Respondents No. 5 to 9 filed a separate counter affidavit alleging suppression of facts, including a dispute between the petitioner, his wife Smt. D. Chitralekha, and his daughter Smt. G. Yamuna over Plot No. 46. They also supported the Government's position that the land is Government land and stated that the church was situated at Plot No. 49, not Plot No. 46.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice T. Madhavi Devi identified the core tension as one between the Government's reliance on the Sethwar and Sessala Pahani of 1955-58 classifying the land as Poramboke Sarkari, and the petitioner's reliance on revenue entries from 1964 onwards showing private ownership. The Court noted that Survey No. 274/1 was recorded in the names of individuals and thereafter the Bhagyalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society, while Survey No. 274/2 continued to be shown as Sarkari land. The Tahsildar's own report confirmed that Ac. 3.19 gts. in Survey No. 274/1 was covered by houses and roads.
The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Others, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407. That judgment had held that Clause (e) of Section 22-A(1) covers properties in which the State Government, local bodies, or religious and charitable institutions claim any interest — as distinct from properties undisputedly owned by the Government under Clause (b). The Full Bench had directed both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to constitute a Committee comprising the Principal Secretary of Revenue, the Director of Survey and Land Records, and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge, to consider grievances against notifications under Section 22-A(1)(e) and pass reasoned orders.
The Court noted that despite the 2015 direction, the Government had not acted until the matter was revisited in Invecta Technologies Private Limited and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4565, where a Division Bench directed the authority to exercise power under Section 22-A in consonance with the Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary guidelines. The Court also noted a docket order dated 03.09.2025 in W.P.Nos. 5382 of 2021 and batch, directing the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on compliance with the Full Bench directions.
In compliance with those directions, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 23.08.2025, constituting a Committee with the Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana as Chairman, a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge as Member, and the Commissioner and Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Telangana as Member Convenor. A Memo No. 469, dated 01.09.2025, issued guidelines for redressal of grievances under Section 22-A(1)(e).
The respondents' counsel also referred to the Division Bench order in W.A.No. 977 of 2025, dated 02.09.2025, where a challenge to G.O.Ms.No. 98 dated 23.08.2025 including the subject land in the prohibition list was met with liberty to challenge the G.O. before the appropriate forum.
The Court accepted the respondents' contention that the factual question of whether Survey No. 274/1 is private patta land or Government land involves appreciation and verification of facts that cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appropriate forum was the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No. 98.
Connected Writ Petitions: Registration Refusals and Subsequent Sales
The common order also disposed of six connected writ petitions. W.P.Nos. 33051, 33134 and 41362 of 2022 challenged the refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds in respect of Plot Nos. 45, 48 and 46 respectively in Survey No. 274/1, citing the Section 22-A prohibited list. The refusal orders were dated 19.07.2022 and 23.09.2022. In those petitions, the Court had earlier granted interim orders suspending the refusal orders and directing the Sub-Registrar to process and release the pending documents, subject to the final result of the writ petitions and with the petitioners undertaking not to claim equities in case of adverse orders.
W.P.Nos. 29036, 29086 and 29089 of 2024 were filed by the subsequent purchasers to whom the petitioners in the 2022 writ petitions had sold the properties and executed General Powers of Attorney. The Sub-Registrar refused to register those transactions as well on the ground that the properties remained in the prohibited list.
The Court disposed of all six connected petitions on the same lines as W.P.No. 18872 of 2019, with similar directions to approach the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No. 98.
Order
The impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2019 passed by the District Collector were set aside. The petitioner in W.P.No. 18872 of 2019 was directed to make a fresh representation to the Committee constituted vide G.O.Ms.No. 98, Revenue (Land Administration.I) Department, dated 23.08.2025. The Committee was directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four months of receipt. Until the Committee takes a decision, all parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property. W.P.Nos. 33051, 33134 and 41362 of 2022 and W.P.Nos. 29036, 29086 and 29089 of 2024 were disposed of on the same terms. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions were closed.