Common Order:

1. WP No.22145 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

               “To declare the action of the official respondents in issuing the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3, dated 05.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent in considering the request of the 9 th respondent for regularization of the plotted land area admeasuring 99043.72 sq.yards situated in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District called as Shilpa Layout, Gachibowli by deleting from the list of prohibited properties U/s.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3, dated 05.07.2023 issued by the 1" respondent…”.

2. WP No.33499 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

               “To declare the action of Respondent No.I in issuing Memo No.42300/Land Admin.11(1)/2022-3 dt.05.07.2023 directing the denotification of the land of plotted area admeasuring 99,043.72 Square Yards situated in Survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 & 45 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 and the consequent action of respondent No. 2 in issuing L.r. No. E1/1030/2022 dt.18.08.2023 to the 3rd Respondent to de-notify the said lands as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, unconstitutional and unsustainable…”.

3. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel, representing for Sri Jalli Narender, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.22145 of 2024, Sri Hemendernath Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing for Sri M.Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.33499 of 2024, Sri Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri E.Ajay Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for respondent No.9 in WP No.33499 of 2024, Sri ASR Avadhani, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 to 14 in WP No.22145 of 2024, Sri P.Raghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.7 in WP No.22145 of 2024.

4. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

W.P.No.22145 of 2024

5. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are members of Mobile Welfare Society, constituted pursuant to Government policy for allotment of house sites to shelterless and economically weaker persons. After a socio-economic survey, the Government allotted Ac.99.27 guntas of Government land in Sy.Nos.32 to 40 of Gachibowli Village to the Society by proceedings dated 31.12.1991, granting final patta. However, physical possession was never delivered, and attempts were made to dispossess members without due process, compelling the Society to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing W.P.No.18668 of 2013 wherein orders of status quo were granted which were continued in subsequent proceedings. No judicial finding has ever invalidated the allotment in favour of the petitioners or the Society. It is further stated that the subject lands are ceiling surplus lands vested in the Government; all tenancy claims were conclusively rejected by the competent authority by order dated 21.09.2019 and the lands were accordingly reflected as Government lands in official records and placed under the prohibitory list under Section 22-A. Taking advantage of non-delivery of possession and lack of demarcation, the unofficial respondents encroached upon the land and raised unauthorized constructions without any lawful title or permission. Despite repeated representations and proceedings, the authorities failed to protect the Government land. The petitioners contend that, ignoring their objections and subsisting judicial orders, the impugned Memo dated 05.07.2023 seeks to delete the land from the prohibitory list and proposes regularization of illegal occupation, thereby legitimizing encroachments and depriving landless poor beneficiaries of a Government welfare scheme of their lawful allotment. Since the objections dated 19.07.2024 have not been considered, the petitioners were constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are members of M/s. Mobile Welfare Society, are aggrieved by the Memo dated 05.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 9th respondent. Through this Memo, an earlier Memo dated 28.03.2013 was withdrawn and certain lands measuring 99,043.72 sq. yards in Gachibowli Village were ordered to be removed from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

               6.1 He would further submit that these lands are Government lands that had already vested in the State under the A.P. Land Reforms Act, 1973 and were later allotted to the Society in 1991 to provide house sites to landless poor persons. Although physical possession was not given, the petitioners’ rights were protected through status quo orders passed by the Court. Further, earlier litigation and orders conclusively rejected the claims of private parties, confirming that the lands continued to belong to the Government and remained under prohibition.

               6.2 He would further submit that taking advantage of the lack of physical possession and failure of authorities to conduct proper survey and boundary fixation, certain private respondents illegally occupied, plotted and sold portions of the land without approval. By suppressing facts and issuing a public notice claiming ownership, they allegedly influenced authorities to obtain the impugned Memo. This action was intended to regularize illegal transactions retrospectively and violates constitutional protections as well as the welfare purpose for which the land was originally allotted.

               6.3 It is also submitted that the petitioners, being beneficiaries of the 1991 allotment and belonging to weaker sections, have a valid and continuing claim over the land. Their claim is supported by pending representations, ongoing status quo orders and even an admission by the Chief Secretary that the matter is still under consideration. Hence, they have sufficient legal standing to challenge the impugned action.

               6.4 He would lastly contend that once certain survey lands were declared surplus under land ceiling laws, they could only be distributed to landless poor persons and not used for private layouts. Since the lands fall under the prohibited category of Section 22-A, the Government had no authority to remove them from the restriction. The Memo is alleged to have been issued solely to benefit a private respondent who has no valid title, as his claim is based on transactions from parties whose rights were already rejected by the Court. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary and a misuse of power, leaving them with no option but to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 vehemently contends that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3 dated 05.07.2023 was issued by the Government strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and in conformity with binding and final judicial orders governing the subject land. The lands in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village were the subject matter of prolonged land reforms and tenancy proceedings, culminating in grant of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, re-determination of surplus land and resumption by the State, all of which have attained finality up to dismissal of writ appeals and abandonment of SLPs. The withdrawal of Memo No.B/129/2005 dated 28.03.2013 and deletion of the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 were undertaken upon due examination, on the opinion of the learned Advocate General and within the competence of the Government under Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act and such deletion does not confer or recognize title in favour of any private party. The petitioners, who lack locus and seek to reopen settled issues and indirectly nullify final judicial determinations, have failed to demonstrate any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of Court orders warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 predominantly contends that the respondent No.7 supports the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3 dated 05.07.2023 as a necessary corrective administrative action undertaken by the Government to align the revenue and registration records with long-concluded statutory proceedings and final judicial determinations. The subject lands in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village stood conclusively adjudicated under the land reforms and tenancy regime, surplus land was resumed by the State, ownership certificates under Section 38-E were implemented pursuant to Court directions and the revenue entries were accordingly reflected as Kharij Khatha. In that backdrop, the Tahsildar’s Memo dated 28.03.2013 had no independent legal sanctity and its withdrawal, on the considered opinion of the learned Advocate General and in exercise of statutory power under Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act, was both justified and inevitable. The consequential deletion of the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act does not create or validate title in favour of any claimant and merely removes an administrative inconsistency. The writ petition, therefore, seeks to resurrect claims already extinguished by operation of law and final adjudication and in the absence of any demonstrable legal right or jurisdictional error, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted.

9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14 argues that this writ petition is a gross abuse of the legal process and should be dismissed. The petitioners’ entire claim relies on a land allotment (Patta) from 1991 that both the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have already declared to be fake and fabricated. Despite these final rulings and subsequent criminal investigations, the petitioners are attempting to revive the same dead claim by presenting "improved" or altered versions of the same fraudulent document.

               9.1 It is further contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this case. They have never been in possession of the land, do not appear in any official revenue records and lack any valid authorization. Because they are members of a society that already lost this exact case in previous litigation, they are legally barred by the principle of res judicata from filing new individual petitions to re-argue the same matter.

               9.2 The respondent characterizes the petitioners' conduct as a deliberate fraud upon the court. By suppressing the fact that binding judgments already exist against them and failing to include Respondent No.10 in the original filing, the petitioners allegedly tried to secure an "ex parte" status quo order through deception. Legally, such "unclean hands" and the use of fabricated evidence disqualify a litigant from receiving any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

               9.3 In contrast, Respondent No.10 claims a lawful and documented interest in the property. They trace their title through a clear chain of registered sales and ownership certificates granted to "protected tenants" under the Tenancy Act. Their interest has been perfected through decades of legal proceedings, layout approvals and nearly 100 registered sale deeds, making them bona fide purchasers of the land.

               9.4 Regarding the challenged government Memo from July 2023, the respondent explains it was a routine administrative correction. The Memo was issued to withdraw an unsustainable previous order and remove the land from the “prohibited registration” list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. This action did not create a new title but simply corrected a mistake to reflect the actual legal status of the property.

               9.5 Ultimately, the respondent asserts that fraud vitiates all proceedings. Since the petitioners’ claim is founded on a proven forgery, they have no enforceable legal right to protect.

WP No.33499 of 2024

10. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the legal heir of late Sri Gadda Maisaiah, one of the four recognized protected tenants and that the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the denotification Memo dated 19.08.2023 in respect of the plotted land admeasuring 99,043.72 Sq. Yards in Survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to binding judicial pronouncements. The said lands form part of the lands earlier declared surplus under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and vested absolutely with the State and the ownership certificates issued under Sections 38-E and 38-A of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect thereof were expressly declared null and void by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch. Despite the same and while review proceedings concerning the rights of protected tenants are still pending, the respondents, at the instance of private parties, have denotified the subject lands, thereby violating the directions of this Hon’ble Court, defeating statutory protections available to protected tenants and colourably conferring legitimacy upon transactions already declared void. The petitioner, therefore, being an interested and aggrieved party, seeks interference of this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned denotification and to protect the subsisting rights of protected tenants in accordance with law.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned action of the respondents in issuing Memo No.42300/L&Admin.II(1)/2022-3 and consequential Memo dated 19.08.2023 directing denotification of land admeasuring Ac.99,043.72 sq. yards in Survey Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of Gachibowli Village is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to binding judicial pronouncements. The lands in question form part of the surplus extent of Ac.137-17 guntas declared under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, surrendered by the declarant, taken possession of by the State on 13.10.1976 and vested absolutely under Section 11 of the Act free from all encumbrances. Such vesting has attained finality and cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law.

               11.1 It is further submitted that the entire issue stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.02.2013 in C.R.P.No.6708 of 2003 and batch, rendered after remand by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3054 of 2006. The Court categorically held that the ownership certificates issued under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act and all consequential transactions, including sale deeds, are void ab initio, and affirmed that the land stood vested in the State with liberty to resume possession. The said judgment has attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions and binds all persons claiming any right in the subject land.

               11.2 In view of the above declaration, no person could derive valid title from such void transactions and the subsequent sales, including those entered into by Respondent No.6 between 2019 and 2023, are non est in law. Registration does not validate a void transaction. After resumption of possession on 24.03.2013, the land was recorded as Government land and included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Despite this, multiple sale deeds were registered, which is contrary to statute and judicial orders. The plea of ignorance is untenable, particularly when Respondent No.6 has itself questioned such classification in prior proceedings.

               11.3 The assertion in the impugned memo that possession was taken only “on paper” is factually incorrect, as physical possession was taken and recorded and caution boards were erected. Such misrepresentation cannot defeat statutory vesting. Further, there exists no statutory power enabling the Government to regularise or denotify land that has vested in the State and is covered by a final judicial determination. The impugned action, therefore, amounts to a colourable exercise of power and an attempt to confer legitimacy on void transactions.

               11.4 The petitioner, claiming protected tenancy rights, is directly and substantially affected and is entitled to maintain the writ petition in assertion of statutory and proprietary rights. Respondent No.6 claims through parties who were themselves part of the earlier litigation and in any event, the declaration of vesting, made with the State as a party, operates in rem and binds all subsequent claimants. The impugned denotification thus seeks to revive extinguished rights, violates the doctrine of finality and is liable to be set aside as illegal and unsustainable.

               11.5 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions :

               (1) N.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Special Court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act)( (2006) 4 SCC 214).

               (2) Sada Vs. The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and another(1987 SCC OnLine AP 187).

               (3) Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. BS Muddappa((1991) 4 SCC 54).

               11.6 The substance of the above decisions is that if the impugned action of the respondents is ex facie arbitrary, contrary to statutory mandate and liable to be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would contend that it is a settled principle of law that public authorities are trustees of public land and are bound to act strictly in accordance with law and in furtherance of public interest and any administrative action which defeats the object of a welfare scheme or confers undue benefit on private parties at the cost of the public is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional. According to the learned counsel, the impugned Memo, in effect, facilitates the regularization of alleged encroachments over valuable Government land originally earmarked for distribution to weaker sections, thereby defeating the very purpose of the scheme. He would further submit that although entries in revenue records do not confer title, they carry evidentiary value and any alteration in the classification or status of land must be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after due consideration of the rights of affected parties and failure to consider the objections of the petitioners renders the impugned action violative of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the State is under a statutory obligation to protect Government land from illegal occupation and cannot take any action which has the effect of legitimizing or perpetuating encroachments and that the impugned denotification, though styled as an administrative act, in substance enables private parties to deal with the land and indirectly validates transactions which are otherwise illegal. The impugned action amounts to a colourable exercise of power, defeating statutory protections and binding judicial pronouncements and warrants interference by this Court.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.33499 of 2024 submits that respondent No.6 is a bona fide purchaser of the subject properties (plot-wise) through a long and unbroken chain of registered conveyances tracing back to protected tenants who were granted ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act pursuant to orders passed in W.P.No.4059 of 1982, which were upheld in W.A.No.1420 of 1987 and attained finality.

               12.1 He would further submit that at the outset the present writ petition is not maintainable for want of locus standi. The petitioner claims rights as the son of an erstwhile protected tenant in respect of Ac.73-03 guntas in the subject survey numbers of Gachibowli Village and questions the denotification. However, it is an admitted fact borne out by registered records that the protected tenants, including the petitioner’s predecessor and the petitioner himself through his GPA holder, executed registered sale deeds as early as 12.11.1998, alienating the entire extent in favour of third parties. These sale deeds have neither been challenged nor set aside in any competent civil proceedings. Having thus divested title and possession decades ago, the petitioner cannot claim to be a person aggrieved so as to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226.

               12.2 He would further submit that it is well settled that a writ petition is maintainable only at the instance of a person who has a subsisting and enforceable legal right. The petitioner, having parted with his rights under registered conveyances and having allowed them to attain finality, no longer retains any legal interest in the subject property. The absence of such right goes to the root of maintainability and is sufficient to reject the petition at the threshold.

               12.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner has also suppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands. The execution of sale deeds in 1998, the grant of layout approvals in 1999 and 2010 and the subsequent development and alienation of plots have not been disclosed. These facts are fundamental, as the petitioner’s claim is premised on rights that stood extinguished long ago. Suppression of such material facts disentitles a litigant from any discretionary relief under Article 226 and is by itself a ground for dismissal.

               12.4 He would further submit that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process. Having executed sale deeds and delivered possession, he now seeks to unsettle the rights of subsequent purchasers by challenging a denotification under Section 22-A. The filing of successive proceedings by connected parties indicates an attempt to reopen settled issues and exert pressure. Any relief obtained on the basis of suppression or misrepresentation cannot be sustained and such proceedings are liable to be rejected in limine.

               12.5 The reliance placed on the order dated 25.02.2013 in the earlier CRPs is misplaced and not binding on Respondent No.6. Those proceedings arose out of disputes between specific parties and the vendors and predecessors-in-title of Respondent No.6 were not parties thereto. An order inter parties cannot operate to the prejudice of non-parties or unsettle rights acquired under registered instruments. Respondent No.6 traces title through ownership certificates issued under Section 38-E pursuant to earlier judicial directions, followed by a chain of registered transactions and such rights cannot be indirectly nullified through collateral proceedings.

               12.6 He would further submit that Respondent No.6 is a bona fide purchaser for value and derives title through an unbroken chain of registered conveyances originating from the 38-E certificate holders, followed by subsequent transfers, development activities and ultimately multiple registered sale deeds executed in its favour. All such transactions carry statutory notice and the petitioner, having himself participated in earlier conveyances, cannot question their validity after having received consideration.

               12.7 He would further submit that Proceedings under Section 22-A are administrative in nature and confined to regulating registration by inclusion or deletion from the prohibitory list. Such action neither adjudicates title nor confers or extinguishes ownership rights. The petitioner is effectively seeking adjudication of disputed title issues under the guise of challenging an administrative order, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction.

               12.8 He would further submit that the petitioner is further barred by the doctrine of election and the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate. Having sold the land and enjoyed the benefits thereof, he cannot now assert inconsistent rights in respect of the same property. He is estopped from disputing the very transactions under which he parted with his interest.

               12.9 He would finally submit that the impugned memo was issued after due consideration of representations, field enquiry, examination of records and legal opinion. The scope of judicial review over such administrative action is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of facts or adjudication of complex title disputes. The present petition, in substance, seeks such impermissible re-adjudication.

13. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 in WP No.33499 of 2024, would submit that the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3 dated 05.07.2023 and consequential proceedings dated 18.08.2023 directing denotification of lands from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the same are passed in gross violation of binding judgments of this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that Respondent No.7 is the original declarant and absolute owner of large extents of land in Sy.Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42 to 47, 51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village, having acquired title under registered sale deeds of 1961 and 1964, and whose holdings were subjected to proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. It is stated that though surplus land was initially determined and surrender was effected in 1976, the subsequent chain of litigation relating to tenancy claims under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act culminated in categorical findings by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court declaring that the 38-E ownership certificates and all consequential sale transactions were null and void, and further declaring that Ac.137-17 guntas stood vested in the State and shall continue to vest in the Government.

               13.1 It is further contended that the judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality and is binding on all authorities, and therefore the State has no authority to act contrary thereto or to indirectly regularize or validate transactions which have been judicially declared void. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned denotification, in effect, seeks to revive and validate transactions arising out of void 38-E certificates and consequential sale deeds, thereby directly nullifying binding judicial determinations, which is impermissible in law. It is also submitted that possession of the surplus land was taken over by the Government under panchanama dated 28.03.2013, and the lands have since been recorded as Government lands, thereby leaving no scope for any administrative interference contrary to the concluded judicial position.

               13.2 It is further contended that though certain proceedings relating to re-computation, exclusion of certain extents, and tenancy claims have been pending or have undergone further adjudication, the core finding regarding vesting of surplus land in the State and invalidation of transactions has attained finality and cannot be diluted through administrative instructions under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned action has been taken without appreciating the binding effect of earlier judgments and amounts to a colourable exercise of power, as it seeks to unsettle rights already crystallized by judicial adjudication.

               13.3 It is also contended that Respondent No.7, being the original declarant and a party directly affected by the impugned denotification, has clear locus standi to challenge the same, particularly when the impugned action has the effect of altering the legal status of lands which have already been adjudicated upon and vested in the State. It is therefore submitted that the impugned Memo is contrary to law, violative of binding judicial pronouncements and liable to be set aside.

14. The learned counsel for respondent No.8 in WP No.33499 of 2024 submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, lacks any merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is argued that the petitioner has not established any enforceable legal right that would justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Memo No. 42300/Land Admn.II(1)/2022-3 dated 05.07.2023 was issued strictly in accordance with law, taking into account the entire litigation history and judicial pronouncements concerning the subject lands.

               14.1. The learned counsel points out that the lands in Survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and connected survey numbers of Gachibowli Village were declared surplus under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. A total extent of Ac.137-17 guntas was duly taken over by the Government and vested in it in 1976 after completing all statutory proceedings. All subsequent challenges to this vesting were adjudicated at various judicial levels, including the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Government has consistently acted in accordance with the directions of these courts.

               14.2. He would further submit that pursuant to earlier orders in W.P.No.4059/1982 and W.A.No.1420/1987, ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were issued to protected tenants for a smaller portion of the lands measuring Ac.73-03 guntas. Later recomputation proceedings were conducted as directed by the Courts, surplus extents were re-determined, and possession of surplus lands was resumed by the Government through duly recorded panchanama.

               14.3. It is his further contention that multiple rounds of litigation, including Civil Revision Petitions and Civil Appeals, followed, ultimately resulting in the High Court’s order dated 25.02.2013 in CRP Nos. 6708/2003 and batch. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court’s directions and in compliance with this, possession of the surplus lands was resumed on 24.03.2013. Since then, the lands have remained vested with the Government.

               14.4. Regarding the alleged “Final Patta Certificate” claimed by Mobile Welfare Society for Ac.99.27 guntas in Survey Nos. 32 to 40, he further contends that it has been verified and found to be wholly bogus, not issued by the District Collector. There is no statutory provision authorizing the issuance of such a patta for such a large extent of Government land. Consequently, the question of handing over possession under a non-genuine document does not arise. Additionally, the Government lands in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts have been under an assignment ban since G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue Department dated 28.04.2006, rendering any claim for fresh allotment or regular patta legally untenable.

               14.5. The learned counsel submits that the impugned Memo dated 05.07.2023 pertains only to the removal of certain plotted lands measuring 99,043.72 sq. yards in Survey Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 45 (Shilpa Layout) from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, for the purpose of regularization. This decision was taken after obtaining legal opinion and considering the complex litigation history, including prior judicial recognition of protected tenancy and Section 38-E rights over portions of the lands. It is further argued that the impugned Memo does not violate any subsisting court orders or override binding judicial directions. On the contrary, it reflects an administrative action taken after carefully reviewing the legal status of the lands in light of prior adjudications. The petitioner has not shown how his legal rights are adversely affected by the denotification. As settled law provides, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the absence of a statutory duty owed to the petitioners or a corresponding enforceable legal right. The present petition seeks to reopen settled issues concerning ceiling proceedings and tenancy adjudications that have attained finality after repeated judicial scrutiny.

               14.6. Finally, it is contended that the petitioner is attempting to cloud the title of Government land despite repeated judicial determinations and statutory proceedings. Such disputed questions of title and possession are not suitable for determination in writ proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law and accordingly prayed to dismiss the same.

15. The learned counsel for respondent No.9 in WP No.33499 of 2024 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is based on misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, and incorrect pleadings, and therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately attempted to include Survey Nos.43 and 44 in the alleged list of lands surrendered by Respondent No.7, despite the fact that the said lands do not form part of the declarant’s holding and were never lawfully owned, possessed, or surrendered by Respondent No.7. It is further submitted that the subject lands in Survey Nos.43 (part) and 44 (part) are in fact owned and possessed by the father of the petitioner under a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 30.03.2013 and an Agreement of Sale dated 2015, followed by a declaration decree in O.S. No.1091 of 2023, and thus the petitioner, being legal heir, had a direct, subsisting, and enforceable interest in the subject property.

               15.1 It is further contended that the pleadings in the writ petition are factually incorrect insofar as they wrongly attribute ownership and surrender of Survey Nos.43 and 44 to Respondent No.7, whereas the said survey numbers are independent private holdings of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. The learned counsel would submit that the attempt to project these lands as part of surplus land surrendered by Respondent No.7 is a deliberate distortion of records and an abuse of process of law. It is therefore argued that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands, and such suppression and misrepresentation disentitle them to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

CONCLUSION

WRIT PETITION No.22145 of 2024

16. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings, rival submissions, and the voluminous material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy raised in both writ petitions is essentially an attempt to re-open a long-settled dispute concerning the subject lands in Sy.Nos.37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and adjoining survey numbers of Gachibowli Village, which have already been subjected to detailed proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The statutory proceedings culminated in determination of surplus land, followed by vesting of substantial extents in the State, and such findings have been consistently affirmed in successive rounds of litigation, including by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality in law.

17. The factual matrix clearly demonstrates that the impugned Memo dated 05.07.2023 and consequential proceedings dated 18.08.2023 were issued by the competent authority only to align the revenue and registration records with the already adjudicated legal position regarding Government ownership and vesting of land. The action of deleting certain lands from the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is purely administrative in nature, intended to regulate registration and does not, by itself, confer, declare, or extinguish title. It is well settled that entries under Section 22-A are only regulatory in character and cannot be treated as determinative of ownership rights.

18. In W.P.No.22145 of 2024, on facts, the petitioners have failed to establish any subsisting or legally enforceable right over the subject lands. Their claim rests on an alleged allotment in favour of a society, which is seriously disputed by the State as being non-genuine and unsupported by statutory authority, and admittedly no possession was ever delivered.

19. In W.P.No.33499 of 2024, the claim is derived through a chain of transactions which, on admitted facts, stand extinguished by execution of registered sale deeds and consequent divestment of rights, thereby disentitling the petitioners from asserting any subsisting title. It is a settled principle that a person who has parted with title or has no subsisting interest cannot maintain a writ petition relating to such property.

20. It is equally significant that the entire litigation history of the subject lands reveals repeated adjudication on issues of tenancy rights, protected tenancy claims, ceiling proceedings, issuance and cancellation of certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and subsequent resumption and vesting proceedings. These issues have been finally determined in earlier rounds of litigation, and the Division Bench judgment in CRP No.6708 of 2003 and batch dated 25.02.2013, along with consequential proceedings, has attained finality. It is a well settled proposition of law that matters which have attained finality cannot be reopened indirectly in collateral proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21. This Court also finds that the present writ petitions are vitiated by suppression of material facts and selective disclosure of the true factual and legal history. The petitioners have failed to candidly disclose the prior adjudications, the nature of transactions affecting title, and the legal status of the land as determined in earlier proceedings. It is settled law that a litigant invoking the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 must approach the Court with utmost candor, and suppression of material facts is sufficient to deny relief at the threshold, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decisions governing the doctrine of clean hands viz., Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey(AIR 2025 SC 1638) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

               “It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.”

22. Further, the disputes raised in the present writ petitions essentially involve adjudication of competing claims of title, validity of transactions, and questions of possession over immovable property. It is well settled that such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, and the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, does not function as a civil court to determine title, particularly where the claims are complex, contested, and require detailed evidence. The appropriate remedy, if any, lies before the competent civil forum as held in Sohan Lal v. Union of India {1957 SCR 738}.

23. Applying the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing (i) absence of enforceable legal right, (ii) locus standi, (iii) estoppel and divestment of rights, (iv) finality of litigation, (v) doctrine of clean hands, and (vi) non-maintainability of writ petitions involving disputed questions of title, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to satisfy the threshold requirements for invoking writ jurisdiction. No jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality in the decision-making process has been demonstrated warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. On facts, it is borne out of the record and not in dispute that one Sri Kanthilal Seth W/o Jaganlal, filed declaration under the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.190-17 Gts in Sy.Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli village and that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West Division conducted an enquiry and determined as surplus land holder to an extent of 2.2862 (SH) as on 01.7.1975 vide Proceedings in CC.No.W/264/1975 dated 09.12.1975. The possession of the surplus land to an extent of Ac.137-17 gts was taken over and vested with the Government. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Government identified the land in Sy.Nos.32 to 40 situated at Gachibowli for the allotment of the house sites for the Mobile Welfare Society as per the request for poor persons and accordingly the land in Sy.No.32 to 40 to an extent of Ac. 99-27 gts was allotted in favour of the Mobile Welfare Society vide Proceedings No.D/06371/DA/SW/LA/91 dated 11.12.1991 as a final patta is not tenable because, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide ref.No.E1/3069/2013 dated: 04.7.2013 clarified that the above certificate is not issued from his office and there are no rules existing to issue Final Patta Certificate for a huge extent of Ac.99.27 gts., as claimed by the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, since the claim of the petitioners is not genuine, they have no enforceable legal right to protect. It is also an admitted fact that the physical possession of the above land was not handed over to the above said Society or its members. The material on record discloses that the petitioner Society, in the year 2019, filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.13178 of 2019 seeking to conduct survey and fixation of the boundaries in respect of the lands allotted to the Society. However, the said writ petition was dismissed.

25. The lands in Sy.Nos.32 to 40 fall under the land ceiling and that on implementation of the land ceiling proceedings, the declarants having known that they are holding excess land referred as per the Land Reforms Act and as such it has to be surrendered to the Government, have sold out land to the private persons like M/s R.R.Kamdhar Company and M/s Kastopa Corporation and other private persons.

26. Moreover, in CRP No.6708/2003 & 1200/2003 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed orders dated 25.02.2013 declaring the lands held by Kastopa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., in respect of land in Sy. Nos.35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 & 53/part situated in Gachibowli village of Serilingampally Mandal as Agricultural Ceiling Lands and directed the state to resume possession of the land.

27. In that backdrop of the factual scenario the impugned Memo No.42300/Land Admin.II(1)/2022-3 dated:06.7.2023, was issued deleting the subject land from the prohibited list under section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 withdrawing the Lr.No.B/129/2005 dated 28.3.2013 as the said land is vested with the Government and accordingly the Government has got the proprietary and custodial rights and hence is at liberty to take decision over the Government lands.

WRIT PETITION No.33499 of 2024

28. As far as the other writ petition i.e. W.P.No.33499 of 2024 is concerned, it is an admitted fact borne out by registered records that the protected tenants, including the petitioner’s predecessor and the petitioner himself through his GPA holder, executed registered sale deeds as early as 12.11.1998, alienating the entire extent in favour of third parties. These sale deeds have neither been challenged nor set aside in any competent civil proceedings. Having thus divested title and possession decades ago, the petitioner cannot claim to be a person aggrieved so as to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner, having parted with his rights under registered conveyances and having allowed them to attain finality, no longer retains any legal interest in the subject property. The absence of such right goes to the root of maintainability and is sufficient to reject the petition at the threshold. Moreover, the petitioner suppressed execution of sale deeds in 1998, the grant of layout approvals in 1999 and 2010 and the subsequent development and alienation of plots. Having executed sale deeds and delivered possession, the petitioner cannot seek to unsettle the rights of subsequent purchasers by challenging a denotification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

29. Moreover, it is the pleading of the petitioner himself in this writ petition that M/s Kastopa Corporation was found to have surplus land under the 1973 Land Ceiling Act, and after their legal appeals failed, they voluntarily surrendered approximately 137 acres in Gachibowli village to the government in October 1976. Since the State took physical possession through an official record (Panchanama), the land now legally and permanently belongs to the Government under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the Government can take any decision thereon since this vesting is statutory and absolute, meaning the original owner loses all rights, and the transfer of title to the Government is final and cannot be overturned except through specific legal provisions.

30. Viewed thus, the present writ petitions are nothing but an attempt to indirectly reopen concluded issues and to unsettle a long-finalised legal position under the guise of challenging an administrative memo, which is impermissible in law and amounts to abuse of the process of this Court.

31. Accordingly, both W.P.No.22145 of 2024 and W.P. No.33499 of 2024 are dismissed as being devoid of merit and not maintainable.

32. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.