Telangana High Court
Mohammed Sardar Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.8190 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned notice No.G1/TMS/8035/2023 dt.14.03.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to regularize the land in Sy.Nos.2870 and 2871 of Nizamabad Shivar, Nizamabad, in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V.Sathyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
3. Petitioner contends that the land in Sy.Nos.2870 and 2871 of Nizamabad Shivar, Nizamabad, belongs to one Katike Balkishan, who had initially agreed to sale the aforesaid land to the petitioner and failing to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving substantial amount, the petitioner had filed a suit, vide O.S.No.22 of 2020, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, for specific performance of 2 agreement and the same has been decreed in favour of the petitioner, vide judgment dt.01.09.2023.
4. Petitioner further contends that on the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner having been decreed, two sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioner on 26.10.2023; that in terms of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner, he has become owner of Plot Nos.1 to 33 under sale deed bearing No.9951 of 2023 dt.26.10.2023, and Plot Nos.34 to 80 under sale deed bearing No.9952 of 2023 dt.26.10.2023; and that the entire extent of land covered by the aforesaid sale deeds is Acs.2.33 guntas.
5. Petitioner further contends that though the sale deeds executed in his favour showed the subject land to be in plots, the vendors of the petitioner did not obtain any layout sanction from the 2nd respondent and thus, the plots sold in favour of the petitioner are to be considered as forming part of an unapproved layout.
6. Petitioner further contends that though the petitioner's vendors had sought for regularization of the aforesaid plots under the Layout Regularization Scheme in the year 2015, the said application has been rejected by the respondents-authorities.
7. Petitioner further contends that since, the petitioner's vendors had made the layout by fixing boundary stones and roads in the subject land, 3 sold to the petitioner under sale deeds dt.26.10.2023, pursuant to the judgment and decree dt.01.09.2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2020, in the same condition as it existed; and that the petitioner did not alter or take any steps to make a layout for the respondents-authorities to issue the impugned proceeding.
8. Petitioner further contends that since, the subject land, wherein the plots are situated, being shown as agricultural land in the revenue records, the petitioner would not sell the aforesaid land by claiming the same as plots, more so, since, conversion from agricultural to non- agricultural has not been obtained by the petitioner's vendors.
9. Petitioner further contends that the petitioner is also willing to file an undertaking affidavit before the 2nd respondent authority that the aforesaid land would be maintained as agricultural land and no part of the same would be sold as plots without obtaining necessary permission or sanction from the respondents-authorities, in accordance with law.
10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that though the petitioner had claimed to have entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of plots from his vendors, the said plots formed part of an unapproved and unauthorized layout and the land wherein the said plots are laid, continues to be an agricultural land and it is for the said reason, the authorities have issued the 4 impugned proceeding dt.14.03.2024, directing the petitioner to remove the stones and the development works that have been undertaken in the subject land admeasuring Acs.2.33 guntas.
11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that if the petitioner files an undertaking affidavit stating that the subject land would not be alienated in the form of plots without obtaining necessary permission/ sanction from the respondents-authorities, the respondents-authorities would not take any further action for enforcing the impugned order.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Having regard to the facts of the case, since, the petitioner has purchased the subject land in the form of plots pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.22 of 2020 dt.01.09.2023, and since, the said plots formed part of an unapproved and unauthorized layout made by the petitioner's vendors, this Court is of the view that the petitioner on the strength of the said sale deeds cannot be permitted to sell the same by showing as plots, nor can seek regularization of the same, since, the land continues to be an agricultural land in the revenue records.
14. As the petitioner has now indicated to this Court that he would approach the 2nd respondent authority and file an affidavit undertaking not to alienate the subject land by showing the same as plots, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to file the aforesaid 5 undertaking affidavit with the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner undertakes not to alienate the subject land admeasuring Acs.2.33 guntas in Sy.Nos.2870 and 2871 of Nizamabad Shivar, Nizamabad, by showing the same as plots, without obtaining necessary conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture and also layout sanction from the respondents-authorities.
15. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:01.04.2024 GJ