M.RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the appellant, who was writ petitioner No.1; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents No.1 to 6; learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, representing learned counsel Sri D.V.Srinivasa Rao, appearing for respondents No.9 and 10 and learned counsel Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velevela appearing for respondent No.13, who was writ petitioner No.2.

(2.) W.P.No.2241 of 2025 was filed by writ petitioner No.1 originally with whom writ petitioner No.2 joined later to question the orders passed by the Tahsildar for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose in Survey Nos.109/1, 112/3 and 134 admeasuring different extents situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal and violative of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, "the NALA Act"). The learned writ court, by the impugned judgment dtd. 24/3/2026, dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petition involves substantial and intricate disputes concerning ownership, succession and the validity of various alienations, many of which are already sub judice before competent civil courts.

(3.) Both the writ petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of land measuring Acs.19.08 guntas in Survey No.109/1 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also other extents of adjoining lands having inherited the same from late Sri M.V.Raghavaiah, who is the father of writ petitioner No.1. The chronology of facts pleaded by the writ petitioners indicates that a development agreement was entered by the writ petitioners with one M.Thimmayya without any authority to alienate the property without the layout approval. However, the alienations made by M.Thimmayya led to the disputes and institution of O.S.No.458 of 1997 against the mother of writ petitioner No.1 and others. The dispute was, however, settled and the suit was withdrawn after settlement. Subsequent thereto, the writ petitioners alleged, collusive conveyance of properties through six unregistered agreements of sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys dtd. 12/9/1997 in favour of charitable trust and others. The writ petitioners contended that mutation proceedings undertaken thereto were collusive, antedated and void, as no notice was issued to the interested parties. This led to filing of W.P.No.12470 of 2019 after the appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer were dismissed. The learned writ court had directed maintenance of status quo with respect to the revenue entries concerning the subject lands. Despite the same, the impugned conversion orders under the NALA Act were passed and development proceedings were executed with commencement of construction activities. The writ petitioners approached this court in the impugned writ petition assailing the conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural purposes by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar. Respondents No.7 to 10 in the writ petition opposed the prayer disputing the ownership of the writ petitioners as the lawful owners. RespondentsNo.11 and 12in the writ petition claimed themselves to be the lawful owners and possessors of certain portions ofthe subject lands. In thisbackground, the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition,as itinvolved complex disputesrelating totitle, ownership, validity of alienations, effect of GPAs, succession rights, family settlements, issuesoflimitation and allegations of fabricated documents. Being aggrieved, writ petitioner No.1 has preferred the appeal. Writ petitioner No.2 hasbeen arrayed as respondent No.13.