1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register and release the sale deed in pending Document, i.e., P.No.199/2024 dt.27.09.2024 presented by the petitioner in respect of the Plot No.R-25, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.329/7 (Part) and 329/8 (Part) of Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase-III situated at Gajularamaram Village, under GHMC Circle, Mandal and Rgn. Sub-Dist: Quthbullapur, Dist. & Reg. Dist: Medchal-Malkajgiri by way of issuing Intimation of Refusal No.68/2024 dt.09.10.2024 on the ground of letter vide Lr.No.E1/MDL/D1/1532/2017-2 dt.24.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and also in violation of the Registration Act, 1908 besides being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and direct respondent No.3 to register and release the sale deed in pending Document P.No.199/2024 dt.27.09.2024 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims that his vendor was the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of Plot No.R-25 admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.329/7 (Part) and 329/8 (Part) of Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase-III, Gajularamaram Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same from one Sri P. Veera Reddy and others represented by their GPA holder Sri P. Shankar Reddy and M/s. Shalivahana Builders Private Limited represented by its Executive Director Sri B. Damodar vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.218/1997 dt.09.01.1997 registered at D.R.O. Rangareddy and it is claimed that ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner’s vendor was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has purchased the subject property from his vendor by paying valid sale consideration and to this effect, both parties got executed a sale deed and approached respondent No.3 for registration of the said document. But respondent No.3 has issued an intimation of refusal letter No.68/2024 dt.09.10.2024 refusing to register and release the said document on the basis of the letter issued by respondent No.2 in Lr.No.E1/MDL/D1/1532/2017-2 dt.24.07.2024. It is submitted that the said ground is not tenable in the eye of law as it was only an internal communication between respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 and no final Notification was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.121, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dt.01.06.2016 and therefore, on the basis of such communication, respondent No.3 cannot refuse to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court, while dealing with similar matters, i.e., in W.P.Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023 vide common order dt.22.03.2024, has laid down that the respondent authorities cannot refuse registration merely on the basis of a communication and that they need to follow due procedure contemplated under the Registration Act, 1908. It is stated that in the present case, no such procedure has been followed and refusal for registration is therefore bad in law. He submitted that in the letter of the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District dt.24.07.2024, there is a reference to G.O.Ms.No.121 dt.01.06.2016, wherein under para 238, it was prescribed that the District Collectors shall furnish lists of immovable properties falling under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A including any subsequent additions, deletions or modifications to the District Registrar concerned and to the Inspector-General of Registration under proper acknowledgement in Forms I and II respectively of Appendix XI and that the lists shall be signed by the District Collectors and the lists signed by any other officer shall not be considered and further, para 241 thereof prescribes that the District Collector shall furnish the list of properties to be notified or to be de-notified under Section 22-A (1)(e) or Section 22-A (4), as the case may be, to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Registration) Department, Telangana State for publication in the Gazette in Form IV of Appendix XI. It is submitted that the said G.O. would apply to the properties which fall under Section 22-A (1)(e) and not to the properties which fall under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Notification dt.25.09.2013 whereunder objections and suggestions have been called for on the proposal to keep the respective lands under the prohibitory list. Serial Nos.60 and 61 therein are Survey Nos.329/7 and 329/8 of Gajula Ramaram Village of Quthbullapur Mandal and the names of the assignee/allottee/owner are mentioned as Pagidi Madhusudhan Reddy and Karnam Chennaiah and not as Government land. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the common order of this Court in W.P.Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023 dt.22.03.2024, wherein this Court has observed that the Notification dt.25.09.2013 is only a notice given for inviting objections and suggestions and that it cannot be the basis for refusal for registration of the subject properties and consequently, the Notifications issued by the Collector have been set aside by the Court and the Registering Authorities were directed to register the document and the condition imposed while granting interim order therein to the effect that the petitioner should not resort to further conveyance of the subject property was also recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions/synopsis and also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions.

               (1) K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 740)

               (2) Invecta Technologies Private Limited and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others (2023 SCC OnLine TS 4565 : AIR 2024 TS 5 : (2024) 1 ALT 272 : (2024) 6 ALD 164).

               (3) T. Yedukondalu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Stamps & Registration, Secretariat of A.P., Hyderabad and others (2011 SCC OnLine AP 179 : AIR 2011 AP 132 : (2011) 4 ALT 82 : (2011) 4 ALD 43).

               (4) M/s. Savera Constructions Private Limited rep. by its authorised signatory R. Subrahmanyam and others Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others (W.P.No.19069 of 2014 dt.25.08.2014).

               (5) Smt. P. Swarnalatha Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Registration and Stamps Department and others (W.P.No.4475 of 2021 and batch dt.06.10.2025).

               (6) Syed Zakir Hussain Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2013 SCC OnLine AP 613 : (2013) 5 ALD 30 : (2013) 4 ALT 671).

               (7) Sri Chinnaramaiahgari Shiva Rajulu Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others (W.P.Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023 dt.22.03.2024).

               (8) Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others (2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 : (2016) 2 ALD 236 (FB) : (2016) 1 ALT 550 (FB)).

               (9) Syed Jaffar Ahmed Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others (2025 SCC OnLine TS 174)

4. Learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General relied upon the averments made by respondent No.3 in his counter affidavit and further placed reliance upon the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.5382 of 2021 and batch dt.03.09.2025, wherein following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others (8 supra) which was further followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Invecta Technologies Private Limited and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others (2 supra), certain guidelines were issued and the Government was directed to constitute a Committee or establish a forum comprising of the Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, the Commissioner and Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Telangana, Hyderabad and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge in terms of the directions of the Full Bench in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others (8 supra) to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the Notifications issued under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. She submitted that pursuant to the said orders, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Revenue (Land Administration.I) Department, dt.23.08.2025 constituting the Committee and the Committee will now look into the objections of the petitioner and the petitioner herein can also file his objections before the Committee. Therefore, according to the Special Government Pleader, the Writ Petition may be closed with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Committee with objections.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court in similar matter, i.e., W.P.No.18872 of 2019 even dated, has held as under:

               “15. In view thereof, the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2019 are set aside with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Committee, which is constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.98, Revenue (Land Administration.I) Department, dt.23.08.2025, and the Committee shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the representation being made by the petitioner. Till such time the Committee takes a decision on the representation of the petitioner, all the parties shall maintain status quo as on date in respect of the subject property.”

6. In the result, this Writ Petition, i.e., W.P.No.30840 of 2024 is also disposed of with similar directions as were given to the petitioner as well as the respondents in W.P.No.18872 of 2019 even dated. No order as to costs.

7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.