Ex-High Court judge challenges Shamshabad land prohibition listing.
Revenue records support owners, challenge prohibited land listing.
The dispute concerns a total of 4.30 acres in Shamshabad mandal of Rangareddy district. The petition states that Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili owns 3.26 acres, while his brother Ashok holds 1.04 acres. According to the plea, the land was purchased from pattadars in 1980 and has remained in the petitioners’ possession since that time. The petition also says passbooks were issued in their names, formally recognising their ownership.
The petitioners challenge proceedings issued by the Rangareddy District Collector on November 6 of last year, by which the land was designated as prohibited property. They contend that the collector incorrectly classified the parcels as assigned land and added them to the prohibited list without producing admissible evidence. The petition argues this action runs counter to the existing revenue records, which, the petitioners say, identify the ancestors of the sellers and corroborate the chain of title.
Seeking relief, the petitioners asked the High Court to quash the collector’s proceedings and declare the inclusion of their land in the prohibited properties list illegal and arbitrary. They maintain that the classification has no basis in the official records and has caused prejudice to their vested rights.
During Monday’s hearing, Justice NV Shravan Kumar noted that the subject matter appears to fall within the administrative scope of the Stamps and Registration Department. He instructed the High Court Registry to place the petition before the judge handling matters related to the department for further consideration on Tuesday.
The case raises questions about the processes used by revenue authorities when reclassifying land and the evidentiary standard required to designate properties as assigned or prohibited. Assigned land typically refers to land granted or allocated under specific schemes or historical arrangements, and its status can affect transferability and usage rights. Prohibited property listings restrict certain transactions and can trigger administrative enforcement, making accurate classification vital for landowners.
The petitioners’ reference to passbooks and long-standing possession reflects common documentary and factual evidence used to establish title in revenue disputes. Passbooks issued by revenue departments usually record pattadar details, area and ownership history, and are often relied upon in court to demonstrate continuous possession and legal entitlement.
Legal experts note that such challenges frequently involve scrutiny of historical records, mutation entries, and any orders or notifications that may have altered land status. If the collector’s order lacks documentary backing or procedural compliance, courts can set aside such administrative actions. Conversely, if the authorities can show lawful grounds for reclassification, the court may uphold the decision.
As the matter is now slated for reassignment to the appropriate bench, the High Court will consider whether to admit the petition, call for records from the district collector and the Stamps and Registration Department, and possibly issue interim directions to protect parties’ rights pending final disposal.
For the petitioners, a favourable outcome would restore their title status and remove the legal impediment imposed by the prohibited-properties listing. For the revenue authorities, defending the classification will require presenting the chain of evidence and legal basis for the collector’s order. The case is likely to hinge on documentary records and the procedural regularity of the reclassification decision.