DR. M. KIRANMAYEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-5
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Decided on March 21,2022

Dr. M. Kiranmayee Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J. - (1.)The petitioner purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.44 cents in R.S.No.94/2, Chintampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District from her vendor Penmatsa Madhuri Sagi Pavan Kumar through registered sale deeds bearing document No.6273 of 2010. In turn her vendor purchased the property from her vendors Manthena Ramachandra Raju bearing document No.4080 of 2005 and from Sanjay Varma bearing document No.4031 of 2005. She further averred that her land is not an assigned land and not a Government land. The revenue authorities did not conduct any enquiry with regard to the nature of property by giving notice to the affected parties. Without giving prior intimation and without following the procedure, her property was included in the prohibitory properties list. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.
(2.)This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of A.P.; 2016 1 ALT 550 (FB) considered the said issue and held as follows:
"35.1 Further, as noticed earlier the State Government is empowered either suo motu or on application to consider the grievances against inclusion of any property in the prohibitory list under Sec. 22-A of Registration Act and is also empowered to de-notify either in full or in part the notification issued under sub-sec. (2). In our opinion, the redressal mechanism is available only with respect to notifications published relating to the properties falling under clause (e) of Sec. 22- A. Hence, any grievance of the parties with reference to the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questioned by the aggrieved parties only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Court and the adjudication by such Court would be final. Further, so far as notified properties falling under clause (e) are concerned, the redressal mechanism under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 22-A would be able to effectively address the grievance provided the mechanism thereunder is effective, expeditious, fair, and judicious. Thus, in order to make an effective redressal mechanism, we deem it appropriate to direct the respective Governments of both the States to constitute a Committee or establish a Forum within time frame, may be comprising of Principal Secretary of Revenue, Director of Survey and Land Records and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge which shall meet periodically to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the notifications. The Committee shall be empowered to examine relevant records and then pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the grievance by either confirming/deleting/modifying any such property from the notified list of properties. In our view, such orders passed by the Committee shall be binding on the State as well as on the aggrieved person and in the event of any of them being aggrieved thereby, they shall have to approach a competent Court of Law for redressal of their grievance."

(3.)Now, it is stated that a committee is constituted for dealing with the issues relating to deletion of properties which were included under Sec. 22A(1) of the Act and in view of the same, the petitioner is given liberty to submit an appropriate representation to the said committee for deletion of the above property under Sec. 22A(1) of the Act. As and when such representation is filed, the committee shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing such representation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.