Hyderabad Residents Challenge Property Restrictions in Bandlaguda
HYDERABAD, August 31: Property owners in Krishinagar and Ajay Nagar colonies of Bandlaguda have sought government intervention over the inclusion of their properties in the 22-A prohibited list. Residents say the restriction has prevented registrations and created uncertainty for families who have occupied homes in the area for decades.
The affected properties are located in Survey Nos. 36/2 to 36/5, according to residents. They claim the neighbourhood was developed over several decades and now includes hundreds of houses, more than 100 apartment buildings and places of worship. Residents maintain that construction was undertaken after obtaining permissions and no-objection certificates from government departments. They also point to existing civic connections, including water and electricity, as evidence of the area’s long-standing development. The dispute centres on the subsequent classification of the land under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Properties included in the prohibited category can face restrictions on registration and transfer, creating difficulties for owners seeking to sell, mortgage or otherwise transact their assets.
For households, the issue goes beyond a paperwork dispute. A property is often one of the largest assets owned by a family. Restrictions on registration can affect its liquidity, financing options and marketability, even when residents have occupied the premises for many years. The welfare associations representing Krishinagar and Ajay Nagar have approached the Telangana Revenue Minister and the Medchal-Malkajgiri district administration seeking a review of the classification. Residents argue that families made substantial investments after relying on approvals and official clearances. They are seeking clarity over the ownership status of the underlying land and removal of eligible properties from the prohibited list. The case highlights a wider challenge in Hyderabad’s expanding urban areas. Development can sometimes continue for years while land records, approvals and ownership classifications remain subject to later disputes. Such gaps can create uncertainty for residents, lenders and prospective buyers.
For property purchasers, the situation also underlines the importance of conducting due diligence before completing a transaction. Buyers should examine title records, survey details, encumbrances, registration status and applicable prohibited-property lists rather than relying only on construction approvals or utility connections. Government agencies face a parallel challenge. Where older neighbourhoods have developed with multiple permissions and civic services, resolving conflicting records requires coordination between revenue, municipal and utility authorities. A transparent review process could help distinguish between land that is legitimately restricted and properties whose records require correction or clarification. Such clarity would protect genuine property owners while preserving the integrity of public land records. The Bandlaguda dispute now awaits administrative examination. For affected families, the immediate priority is certainty over their property rights. For Hyderabad’s wider real estate market, the episode reinforces the importance of accurate land records and clear ownership information in supporting secure, sustainable urban growth.
