I. Bhaskara Rao, v. The State Of Telangana

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15279 OF 2016 O R D E R :

The case of the petitioners is that they made an application on 13.02.2016 to the 2nd respondent for conversion of their agriculture land in Sy.Nos.64/1, 64/2, 64/3 admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District into non-agricultural purpose having purchased the same through registered sale deeds bearing No.8965/2003 and 1073/2006. They were also issued Pattedar Pass Books and Title deeds in respect of the said land. The 2nd respondent forwarded the said application to the 3rd respondent for making local enquiry and also for submission of report to grant permission. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 24.03.2016 to the 2nd respondent. On verification of the said report, it is noticed that as per records, the land in Sy.No.

64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 are recorded as Venkataiah kunta patta. Thereafter the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal submitted a report dated 10.03.2015 to the District Collector for clarification of certain points and the petitioners were issued impugned memo dated 02.04.2016 stating that their request for conversion of the subject lands from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose cannot be considered at this juncture. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report dated 24.03.2016 submitted by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal show that the subject lands are not the Government lands and recommendations were also made for

conversion of the said lands into non-agricultural land. He also submits that earlier when registrations were refused W.P.No.26565 of 2013 is filed and the report dated 23.09.2013 referred in the said writ petition also show that the lands in Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 of Pedda Amberpet Village are patta lands. In spite of the same, the 2nd respondent expresses doubt in the same.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue seeks time for getting instructions. He also submits that since the matter was referred to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent could not take any action.

Since it is stated that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to grant permission for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture, it is for him to consider the application of the petitioners and the same cannot be kept pending for years together. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners for conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural land in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 10.06.2016 dv