V. SUNANDAMMA vs The State of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WP No.4173 of 2020
(CNR.No.HBHC010162802017)

Reserved on 12.08.2026 Pronounced on 15.09.2026
Uploaded on 15.09.2026

Between
V. Sunandamma
….Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, reptd by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and others.
….Respondents
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for records pertaining to the Order passed by respondent No3 in File
No.G/346/2014 dated 11.04.2014 and as confirmed by the respondent
No.2 in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 and to
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of
natural justice and 300-A of Constitution.
2. Heard Ms. Swetha, learned counsel representing Sri V. Raghava
Reddy, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri
Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.K.Mukheed,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


3. The brief facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that
originally, the patta for the land in Sy.No.375, admeasuring Acs.13-38
guntas, situated at Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, stood in
the name of late Sri Mahaboob Ali, who died intestate leaving behind
his two sons, Vikaruddin and Gulam Hyder; that though both were
entitled to equal shares, Gulam Hyder managed to get the patta of the
entire extent of the said land mutated in his name; that aggrieved
thereby, Vikaruddin preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector,
Mahabubnagar, in Appeal No.B/34/97, which came to be dismissed on
25.06.2001, and thereafter, he filed W.P.No.3424 of 2002 before this
Court; and this Court, vide order dated 23.10.2008, remanded the
matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar for fresh
consideration; that pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, Achampet, vide
order dated 16.02.2009 in Case No.ROR/434/2008, recognised
Vikaruddin’s entitlement to half share in the subject property.
3.1. It is further averred that Vikaruddin had agreed to sell one-
fourth of his half share in the subject property i.e., Acs.1.29 gts to the
petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-, towards which the
petitioner paid Rs.75,000/- as part consideration under the agreement
dated 03.12.1997; and that Vikaruddin had agreed to execute the sale

3
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


deed upon resolution of the dispute between himself and his brother
concerning his share in the subject property.
3.2. It is further averred that pursuant to Tahsildar’s order dated
16.02.2009, the petitioner requested Vikaruddin to execute the sale
deed, but he failed to do so, compelling the petitioner to institute
O.S.No.124 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool,
seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1997; that
the said suit was dismissed and, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred A.S.No.57 of 2019 before the IX Additional District Judge,
Wanaparthy and the said appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated
02.09.2024 and that aggrieved thereby, Vikaruddin preferred
S.A.No.14 of 2025 before this Court, wherein an order of status quo
was granted and the SA is pending adjudication.
3.3. It is further averred that while the things stood thus, respondent
No.4- grandson of Gulam Hyder through his GPA holder-respondent
No.5, applied for conversion of an extent of Acs.2-16 guntas in
Sy.No.375 from agricultural to non-agricultural use; that respondent
No.3 vide proceedings dated 11.04.2014 in File No.G/346/2014
accorded the permission; that aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred NALA Appeal No.D3/1982/2016 before respondent No.2,
who initially granted stay on 01.09.2016, but subsequently dismissed

4
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


the appeal on 13.12.2019; and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
filed this Writ Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
instituted suit in O.S.No.124 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge,
Nagarkurnool, seeking specific performance of the agreement dated
03.12.1997; that, during the said proceedings, Vikaruddin, while
deposing as D.W.1, admitted execution of the agreement and their
understanding that the sale deed would be executed upon resolution of
the dispute between himself and his brother; that though the said suit
was dismissed, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.57 of 2019 before the
IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.
4.1. He further submitted that during the pendency of the civil
proceedings, respondent No.4, through his GPA holder-respondent
No.5, applied for conversion of an extent of Acs.2.16 guntas in
Sy.No.375 from agricultural to non-agricultural use, claiming that the
land stood in the name of his predecessor; that respondent No.3,
without issuing any notice to the petitioner, allowed the said
application by order dated 11.04.2014 in File No.G/346/2014; and that
the petitioner, aggrieved thereby, preferred NALA Appeal
No.D3/1982/2016 before respondent No.2; that respondent No.2
initially granted stay on 01.09.2016, but subsequently dismissed the

5
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


appeal by order dated 13.12.2019, principally on the grounds that the
agreement relied upon by the petitioner did not contain specific
boundaries and that O.S.No.124 of 2012 had been dismissed.
4.2. He further submitted that the agreement was in respect of an
undivided share in the subject property and there had been no partition
between the co-sharers; that therefore, the particular portion
corresponding to the petitioner’s proposed purchase could not have
been identified at that stage; that in the absence of partition,
Vikaruddin’s entitlement was only to an undivided share in the subject
land, and as such, the reasoning assigned by respondent No.2
regarding absence of boundaries in the agreement could not by itself
be a ground to reject the petitioner’s objection for conversion of a
particular portion of the joint property.
4.3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 erred in treating the
dismissal of O.S.No.124 of 2012 as determinative of the petitioner’s
rights, since the same had already been challenged in A.S.No.57 of
2019 and the said appeal was still pending at the time of hearing
NALA Appeal; that the rights asserted by the petitioner under the
agreement dated 03.12.1997 have not attained finality and that the
pendency of the appeal was a relevant circumstance which ought to

6
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


have been considered by respondent No.2 while deciding the NALA
appeal.
5. He finally submitted that as the conversion proceedings
concerned a portion of land forming part of the larger extent in
Sy.No.375 and the petitioner claimed an interest arising from an
undivided share therein, respondent No.3 ought not to have proceeded
with the conversion application without affording the petitioner an
opportunity of hearing; that the impugned orders, therefore, suffer
from violation of principles of natural justice and failure to properly
appreciate the nature of the petitioner’s claim and interest in the
subject property.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the
petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with Vikaruddin and
not with respondent No.5; that the petitioner, relying upon the said
agreement dated 03.12.1997, had encroached upon the land claimed
by respondent No.5; that respondent No.5 had instituted O.S.No.94 of
2020 before the Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, seeking declaration of
title and recovery of possession, which is pending adjudication; and
that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pendency of the said suit
in the present writ petition, thereby suppressing a material fact and
seeking to mislead this Court.

7
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


6.1. He further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and
her alleged vendor-Vikaruddin has no bearing upon the rights of
respondents No.4 and 5; that Vikaruddin, being the petitioner’s
vendor, was not impleaded as party in the present writ petition, though
his presence was necessary for adjudication of the petitioner’s claim;
and that contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the property in
Sy.No.375 had already been partitioned between the parties concerned
in the year 2009.
6.2. He further submitted that the petitioner had already instituted
O.S.No.124 of 2012 against Vikaruddin seeking specific performance
of the agreement dated 03.12.1997; that though the suit was initially
dismissed, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in A.S.No.57 of 2019
was allowed; that aggrieved thereby, Vikaruddin preferred S.A.No.14
of 2025 before this Court, wherein an order of status quo was granted;
and that respondent No.4 was impleaded in O.S.No.124 of 2012 only
as a formal party, without any substantive relief being sought against
him.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 finally submitted
that in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings in respect of the
petitioner’s alleged agreement and the title and possession claimed by
respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot seek adjudication of such

8
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


disputed civil rights in the present writ petition; that the petitioner has
an appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court; and that
having suppressed material facts and failed to establish any
enforceable right against respondent No.4, the writ petition is devoid
of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
9. The material available on record discloses that the petitioner
claims an interest in the subject property under an agreement of sale
dated 03.12.1997 said to have been executed by Vikaruddin. The said
claim has been the subject matter of civil proceedings between the
parties. The petitioner instituted O.S.No.124 of 2012 seeking specific
performance of the said agreement. Though the suit was initially
dismissed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were carried in
appeal by the petitioner in A.S.No.57 of 2019, which was
subsequently allowed. The matter is presently stated to be pending
before this Court in S.A.No.14 of 2025 at the instance of Vikaruddin.
It is in the above factual background that the legality of the order
passed by respondent No.2 is required to be examined. It is further
evident that NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 was

9
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


dismissed primarily on two grounds, namely, that the agreement of
sale relied upon by the petitioner did not contain specific boundaries
and that O.S.No.124 of 2012, instituted by the petitioner for specific
performance, had been dismissed by the Trial Court.
10. As regards the ground assigned by respondent No.2 that the
suit-OS.No.124 of 2102 was dismissed, it is to be noted that as the
same was arrived at without taking into consideration the subsequent
developments arising out of the said proceedings. The dismissal of the
suit did not attain finality, as the petitioner carried the matter in appeal
and the appellate proceedings were pending as on the date of passing
order in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 by
respondent No.2. Though the judgment passed by the appellate
authority is challenged in S.A.No.14 of 2025, the claim asserted by
the petitioner under the agreement of sale cannot be treated as having
been conclusively negatived solely on the basis of the judgment
initially rendered by the Trial Court. Respondent No.2 was, therefore,
required to consider the entire status of the civil proceedings while
adjudicating the appeal and could not have proceeded on the
assumption that the dismissal of the suit had put an end to the
petitioner’s claim and the said ground taken by respondent No.2 is
unsustainable.

10
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


11. The further reasoning of respondent No.2 that the agreement of
sale did not contain specific boundaries also requires consideration in
the context of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner
specifically contends that the agreement relates to an undivided share
in the larger extent of land and that the respective portions of the co-
sharers had not been identified by metes and bounds. On the other
hand, respondents No.4 contend that the property had already been
partitioned. These are matters which essentially involve disputed
questions concerning the nature and extent of the rights claimed by the
respective parties in the subject property. The revenue authorities,
while considering an application for conversion of land, are not
competent to adjudicate complicated disputes relating to title or to
conclusively determine the civil rights of rival claimants. In the
present case, civil proceedings concerning the subject property and the
rights claimed by the petitioner therein were pending. Therefore,
respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consideration the pendency
and status of the civil proceedings while deciding the appeal preferred
against the order of conversion.
12. From the record, it is evident that the rights claimed by the
parties in respect of the subject property, including the nature and
extent of their respective interests and the identity of the land claimed

11
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


by them, are the subject matter of pending civil proceedings. When
such questions concerning the title, extent and identity of the property
are under adjudication before the competent Civil Court, the revenue
authorities cannot proceed on the basis of assumptions regarding the
respective rights of the parties or record findings which would, in
effect, prejudge the issues pending before the Civil Court.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly
having regard to the subsisting civil dispute concerning the very
property in respect of which conversion was sought, the authorities
ought to have duly taken into consideration the status of the civil
proceedings and the rights claimed by the respective parties before
proceeding with the conversion.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 while dismissing
NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016, vide orders dated 13.12.2019
cannot be sustained. Consequently, the orders impugned in the present
writ petition are liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated
11.04.2014, passed by respondent No.3 in File No.G/346/2014, as
confirmed by respondent No.2 in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016,
dated 13.12.2019, is hereby set aside. No costs.

12
LNA, J
WPNo.4173 of 2020


16. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:15.09.2026
Dr