The Telangana High Court has affirmed that prolonged administrative inaction on legitimate applications to unblock land records constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. This judgment reinforces the duty of revenue authorities to act promptly on digital applications, particularly where ownership is documented and undisputed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M. Devu Bai, is the lawful heir and possessor of agricultural land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas in Survey No. 9/6a/1, Beltaroda Village, Tanoor Mandal, Nirmal District. The land was inherited from her late husband, M. Gangadhar, who inherited it from his father. Her name was duly mutated in the revenue records, and she was issued an e-pattadar passbook (No. T14190040447) with Khata No. 60006. In July 2024, she discovered that her land had been erroneously blocked under a prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, citing a pending criminal case (RC/BD1/2014/E/2024). She verified that the land did not appear on the official online registration portal.
Procedural History
- 15 July 2024: Petitioner submitted an online application via Prajavani portal (Ref: TAHTN/E/7/2024/00023) seeking unblocking of the survey number.
- 23 July 2024: The Tahsildar (Respondent No. 4) submitted a report (Proceedings No. B/520/2024, Ex.P-4) recommending removal of the block.
- No decision: Despite the recommendation, neither the District Collector (Respondent No. 3) nor the Tahsildar took any action for over six months.
- 29 June 2024 & 1 February 2025: Petitioner filed follow-up applications, which remained unaddressed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 3 and 4 to consider her application, afford her a hearing, and unblock the land without further delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative inaction on a duly filed online application for unblocking land, supported by a recommending report and clear ownership documentation, violates the right to property under Article 300A and justifies judicial intervention through mandamus.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prolonged delay - over six months - constituted arbitrary inaction in violation of Article 300A and the principle of reasonable time under Article 21. She relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to assert that where ownership is established and no adverse claim exists, authorities cannot remain passive. The recommendation by the Tahsildar was a clear indication that the block was legally unsustainable, and failure to act amounted to a denial of justice.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue conceded that the Tahsildar’s report had recommended unblocking but claimed procedural formalities required higher-level review. He did not dispute the petitioner’s ownership or the absence of the land from the online registry but argued that the matter was under internal consideration, without providing any timeline or justification for delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s claim and the state’s response. It noted that the petitioner had fulfilled all procedural requirements: mutation was complete, e-pattadar passbook issued, and the land was absent from the prohibited list online. The Tahsildar’s report dated 23 July 2024 was not merely a recommendation - it was a conclusive administrative finding that the block was erroneous. The Court held that delay in decision-making, especially when no legitimate ground for opposition exists, amounts to a violation of substantive due process.
"The State cannot remain a silent spectator when a citizen’s right to property is under unjustified threat, particularly when its own subordinate officer has recommended corrective action."
The Court rejected the notion that internal bureaucracy could justify indefensible delay. It emphasized that Article 300A imposes a positive obligation on the State to protect property rights, not merely refrain from arbitrary deprivation. The failure to act on a clear recommendation, coupled with multiple follow-ups, demonstrated procedural arbitrariness. The Court further held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy because the petitioner had no alternative effective remedy, and the matter involved a clear legal duty.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that administrative inaction on a documented, recommended application for land unblocking violates Article 300A and directed Respondents 3 and 4 to decide the application within four weeks, after affording a hearing to all concerned parties. No costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Delay Is Not a Defense
- Practitioners must now treat delays exceeding 60 days on land-related applications as prima facie violations of Article 300A
- A recommending report from a subordinate officer creates a non-discretionary duty to act unless new, substantive objections arise
- Inaction cannot be justified by internal workflow; the burden shifts to the State to explain delay
Mandamus Is Available for Property Rights
- Writs of mandamus are now clearly available for unblocking land records where ownership is documented and no valid legal bar exists
- Courts will not tolerate bureaucratic inertia when property rights are at stake, even in the absence of a statutory deadline
- Petitioners should cite State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and this judgment to establish the State’s affirmative duty
Digital Applications Are Legally Valid
- Online submissions via government portals (e.g., Prajavani) are legally recognized applications
- Authorities cannot ignore digital filings on grounds of "non-receipt" or "technical issues" if the system confirms submission
- Practitioners should retain digital timestamps and portal acknowledgments as conclusive evidence of filing
