1. Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“…to pass an order or orders, direction or issue a writ more particularly one in the name of writ of Mandamus, (i) Direct the respondent No.2 herein to issue No Objection Certificate for alienation of agricultural land of the petitioner to the total extent of Acs.400 situated in Sy.No.73/3/1 of Ankunta village, Adilabad Rural Mandal, District Adilabad, (ii) Further direct the respondent No.2 to delete the said land from the prohibitory list for alienation from the office of the Respondent No.3 and consequently declare the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing No Objection Certificate for alienation of above said land by keeping the said land under prohibitory list for alienation before the office of 3rd respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass any such other order, orders as this Hon’ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. According to petitioner, his maternal grandfather, Ganga Ashiga, was pattadar of land to an extent of Acs.10.27 guntas in Survey No.73/1 of Ankunta Village. Petitioner states that the said land was assigned to his maternal grandfather prior to 1958. To support that the land was assigned prior to 1958, petitioner placed reliance on entries made in the year 1954-55 kasra pahani. Petitioner states that during the year 2005-06, land to an extent of Acs.6.27 guntas was acquired by the State Government for the purpose house sites. After the said acquisition, grandfather was left with Acs.4.00 of land. After death of maternal grandfather, Ganga Ashiga, his daughter, by name, Chinna Gangu Bai, succeeded to the properties owned by Ganga Ashiga. Chinna Gangu Bai also died leaving the petitioner as the sole legal heir. After death of Chinna Gangu Bai, petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records and he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds. Thereafter, survey number was changed to that of Survey No.73/3/1. Petitioner intends to dispose of the said property and when he approached the Sub Registrar, the Sub Registrar informed that the said property was included in the prohibited properties list and therefore no transaction can be undertaken. On 17.02.2021, petitioner made representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad District, 2nd respondent, requesting him to delete the subject land from the prohibited list of properties. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.

4. Petitioner admits that the original vendor was an assignee. The only issue sought to be agitated by the petitioner is that such assignment was granted to Ganga Ashiga prior to 1958 and therefore there was no restraint on alienation of land assigned prior to 1958. Petitioner therefore sought to contend that there was no restriction for alienation of the property. It is therefore contended that once title is validly passed, petitioner is entitled to deal with the property as convenient to him.

5. In this writ petition, petitioner is praying to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue No Objection Certificate for alienation of Acs.4.00 of land and to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the said land from the prohibited list of properties.

6. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, prayer in the writ petition and the representation made to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 17.02.2021 point out that petitioner is anxious that his land is now included in the list of prohibited properties. Once the land is included in the list of prohibited properties, it cannot be alienated and the registering authority cannot receive and process any deed of conveyance on a prohibited property and register the same. Thus, for the petitioner to deal with the property, first it has to be deleted from the prohibited list of properties.

7. In supersession of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act ( the 26 of 1971), the 9 of 2020 is notified. The Act 9 of 2020 deals with mutation requests in three contingencies as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the. The9 of 2020 does not deal with deletion of properties from the prohibited list of properties. Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act imposes restraint on the registering authority from entertaining documents for registration on properties which are included in the list of prohibited properties in various circumstances, as mentioned in Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act. Once a property is included in the list of prohibited properties, the registering authority cannot receive the document for registration.

8. In Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2016 (1) ALT 550 (FB)], the Full Bench of this Court considered the scope of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the competency to delete the property from the list of prohibited properties. The Full Bench upheld the Government Circular Instructions issued earlier authorising the District Collectors concerned to redress the grievances of individuals against several aspects concerning the entries in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks within their jurisdiction. The Full Bench also directed constitution of committees at various levels to consider the grievances regarding deletion of properties from the list of prohibited properties. After the notification of the 9 of 2020, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration issued Circular No.1 of 2021, dated 15.01.2021, authorising the District Collectors to deal with the various grievances concerning the entries in the revenue records, issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and also inclusion and exclusion of properties in the list of prohibited properties. Clause (H) of the said Circular deals with the issue of deletion of properties from the list of prohibited properties. An aggrieved person has to make an application through online web portal requesting to delete the property included in the list of prohibited properties.

9. Having regard to the statutory provisions and the orders of the Government, it is seen that petitioner made representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is not competent to deal with the claim of the petitioner for exclusion of property from the list of prohibited properties. Further, petitioner has not arrayed the District Collector as respondent. Since the application is made to an incompetent authority and competent authority is not made as a party, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground also.

10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the liberty afforded by the Chief Commissioner in Circular No.1 of 2021, dated 15.01.2021. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, stand closed.