B. Prakash & Ors. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Heard Sri P.Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners being the legal heirs of late B.Rangaswamy, claim ownership and possession of land admeasuring Ac.2-10 guntas in Sy.No.129/56, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad which was earlier purchased vide registered sale deed dated 03.09.1964. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, the petitioners applied for regularization of the subject land. Upon enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, District Level Committee and State Level Committee successively verified their possession, recommended regularization, determined the regularization fee and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration directed the District Collector to collect the said fee amount and report compliance. However, contrary to the recommendations, the District Collector addressed a letter dated 27.05.2010 seeking rejection of the applications, compelling the petitioners to file a batch of writ petitions. This Court, by orders dated 15.04.2011 in W.P.No.18460 of 2010, (confirmed in W.A.No.117 of 2012 dated 23.07.2014), quashed the Collector's letter and directed consideration of the petitioners' applications. Thereafter, by common judgments dated 22.08.2021 in W.P.No.19203 of 2010 and batch and in W.P.Nos.18459 and 19204 of 2010 dated 17.12.2024, this Court again directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization. Despite the petitioners representation dated 27.07.2026, no action has been taken by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' applications for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, were duly recommended by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the District Level Committee and the State Level Committee, and the regularization fee was also determined. Learned counsel submits that despite the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18460 of 2010 dated 15.04.2011, confirmed in W.A.No.117 of 2012 dated 23.07.2014, and the subsequent common judgments dated 22.08.2024 in W.P.No.19203 of 2010 and batch and dated 17.12.2024 in W.P.Nos.18459 and 19204 of 2010, respondent No.2 has failed to implement the said directions. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 27.07.2026 and implement the aforesaid orders.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioners' representation dated 27.07.2026 shall be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the fact that this Court had already issued directions in W.P.No.18460 of 2010 dated 15.04.2011, confirmed in W.A.No.117 of 2012 dated 23.07.2014, and in the common judgments dated 22.08.2024 in W.P.No.19203 of 2010 and batch and in W.P.Nos.18459 and 19204 of 2010 dated 17.12.2024, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to follow the aforesaid orders as applicable to the petitioners case and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners' representation dated 27.07.2026, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.