Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has ruled that a District Collector cannot cancel registered land documents solely on the ground that the properties are included in the prohibited list under Section 22‑A of the Registration Act, 1908.
The court made it clear that when the very inclusion of lands in the prohibited list is under a cloud, registrations based on such inclusion cannot be annulled in a mechanical manner.
Order on Karimnagar Kothapalli lands
Justice K Lakshman recently delivered a judgment allowing 35 writ petitions that challenged the cancellation of 453 registered documents relating to lands in Survey Nos. 197 and 98 of Kothapalli village, Karimnagar district, are notified under Section 22-A.
These land registrations had been cancelled by an order of the Karimnagar Collector dated May 12 this year, which the High Court has now set aside as invalid.
During the hearing, the government pleader, Katram Muralidhar Reddy, argued that the government has the authority to take possession of lands included in the prohibited list.
Justice Lakshman, however, noted that the subject lands were not in the prohibited list till 2012 and were added only in 2016, allegedly without following the prescribed procedure.
Natural justice and notice requirement
Referring to Rule 243, the judge observed that even if the rule does not explicitly mandate issuance of notice before including lands in the prohibited list, the state is bound to act in a fair and reasonable manner in line with principles of natural justice.
The court held that when an adverse decision involving civil consequences is contemplated, prior notice to the affected parties is essential.
On this basis, Justice Lakshman concluded that the Collector’s order cancelling registrations, without giving affected parties notice or an opportunity to be heard, is unsustainable in law.
The court therefore declared the cancellation orders invalid and restored the registrations.
Conflicting precedents on Section 22‑A
Justice Lakshman also pointed to conflicting judicial views on the scope and operation of Section 22‑A and the procedure for including lands in the prohibited list.
He referred to the Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile combined High Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari, which held that lands falling under all clauses of Section 22‑A(1) require a Gazette notification, but interpreted that only lands under clause (e) specifically need such publication.
The judge contrasted this with subsequent decisions. In the Siri Nivasam Mutually Aided House Building Society Ltd vs State of Andhra Pradesh matter, the Supreme Court remitted the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 22‑A back to the High Court and stated that the Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari ruling should not be relied upon while deciding that case.
Later, in BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society vs State of Telangana, a Division Bench, relying on Siri Nivasam, held that since the Section 22‑A controversy is pending before the Supreme Court, the Vinjamuri Full Bench judgment has effectively lost force.
Need for clarity on Section 22‑A
Justice Lakshman further noted that in 2023, in the Invecta Technologies Ltd case, another Bench of the High Court upheld Section 22‑A by placing reliance on the Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari Full Bench decision, thereby creating further ambiguity.
In light of these divergent views on whether Gazette notification is mandatory and on the continuing validity of Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari, the judge remarked that important questions of law arise.
To secure authoritative clarity, Justice Lakshman directed that the case papers be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, including possible reference to a larger Bench.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by P N Sree Harsha | 
