1756001039 Telangana HC orders trial courts to issue summons before non

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday, August 25, came down heavily on the state government for failing to furnish the prohibited lands list to sub‑registrars, leaving citizens unaware of restrictions until their requests for land registration are rejected at the office.

Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar, while hearing a batch of petitions, questioned why people should be kept in the dark when a full bench had already directed the government a decade ago to provide the information to registration authorities.

The court recorded that more than 5,100 petitions have been filed by aggrieved parties after their registrations were turned down on the grounds that the properties fell under the prohibited list as per Section 22‑A.

Responding to the court’s queries, government counsel Katram Muralidhar Reddy submitted that the state had recently constituted a three‑member committee through G.O. No. 98 dated August 23 to deal with disputes relating to prohibited lands.

He explained that the committee would review complaints concerning inclusion, deletion, or correction of land details in the prohibited list and issue binding decisions on both the government and complainants.

In cases where disputes remain unresolved, parties will have to approach the civil courts for redress. The counsel further stated that the committee has been given a three‑year term and will meet at least once every month to review cases.

Court asks govt to ensure effective implementation of order

Taking note of these submissions, Justice Anil Kumar directed the government to ensure the effective implementation of the order constituting the committee. At the same time, the court issued strict instructions that district collectors must supply prohibited lands data to sub‑registrars within nine weeks.

It also ordered the government to file an affidavit within ten days detailing the directions issued to collectors and the progress made in implementing the same.

Justice Kumar made it clear that in case of non‑compliance, the chief secretary would be required to appear before the court in person and provide an explanation.