The High Court · 2025

4. [V'lrs- Rumana Farshori, Wo Mohd Arif Farshori, aged 56 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 2-2-181111, D.D.Colony, Hyderabad rep by her GPA Holder Smt. Dr. Rizwana Habib W/o Dr. Habib Bobaker, Aged 58 years, Occ. Doctor Rl/o H.No. 2-2-18l1/1 , D.D.Colony, Hyderabad i.e., Petitioner No.3. 5, tVlrs. Roshina Salman, W/o Salman Hussain, Aged 52 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o H. No. 2-2-1 81 1 I 1, D.D.Colony, Hyderabad. .,...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Survey and Settlement Land Records of Telangana Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad. 4. The Tahsildar, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot lhe Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 in not considering the representation dt. 1911212020 made by the petitioners, for conducting the survey and fix the boundaries for an extent ':1 land admeasudn! Ac.0-30gts., in Sy. No 51 i 1 situated at Near Vidyanaga . Bridge, Amberpet, Hyderabad which was wrongly included in revenue Sy.No-5:l/. is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respo')c -'nt Nos.2 to 4 to conduct the survey ar-rd fix the boundaries to an exterr: of Ac-0-309ts., in Sy.No.51/1 situated at Near Vidyanagar Bridge, Amberpet, lr\ derabad which was wrongly included in revr:nue Sy.No.5211 by considering the re1;resentations made by the petitioners dt. 19/1 2l2O2O and pass |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Petition Under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the c r..rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couri rnay be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 to conduct the survey anr: f x the boundaries to an extent of Ac.0-309ts., in Sy.No.51/1 situated at Nea - Vidyanagar Bridge, Amberpet, Hyderabacl which was wrongly included in re re nue Sy.No.5211 by considering the representations made by the petitioners dl. -gl12l2O2O. pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.KAKKAD, ADVOCATE rOR SRI B.MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SAHAS REDOY, LEARl,ll::D AGP REPRESENTING SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, G.TI F OR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V'VENUGOPAL WRIT PETIT ION No. 25L2 oF 2O2L ORDER: Thc Present wrlt petition is tiled by the petitioncrs for the following relief : ". . . . to issue writ order or direction more particularly one declaring the action ti.:l: 'rn thc nature of *tit'oi*"J^rn"" respondentNos.zto+innotconsidering,therepresentatlon dated i9. 12.2O2O rn""at Ui the petitioners' for conductinC-ll: f'* tf'" Uo"'atiies fot-an extent of land admeasurtng ar near Vidvanagar Bridge, ""*.V ""a Ac.o 30 Grs., in sv.r,iJ.lll-r, "iruated n-L".p"t, Hvatt"t"J whicir was wrongly included in revenue -"tto""titutional and Sv.No 52l t is ifrtllf"'-"t-ui""w urrJ consequently aitt"i"fr" *"p""J""t Nos'2 to 4 to conduct the survey and fix tfte bound"lt" to an extent of Ac O-3O Gts'' in Sy.No.5f / 1 situateJ u't t'ttt Vidyanagar Bridge' Amberpet' Hyderabad tr'it:rt i'i"Ito"grv i"tr"aed-in revenue Sy No 52l1 made bv the petitioners dated by considerins th";;;;;;;ii";= 19.12.2020...."

2. Heard Sri K'Kakkad' learned counsel representing Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sahas Reddy, le arncd Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Muraiidhar Rccldy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue'

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petition is frled by the petitioners challenging the inaction of respondent Nos'2 to 4 in not considering the petitioners' reprcsentation dated 1g.12.2O2O, requesting for a survey and demarcaLion of boundaries in resPect of land admeasuring Ac O-3O .-- I'age 2 ofJ guntas in Sy.No.S1/ 1 , Amberpet Village, Hyderzrlr rd. The pctitioners contend that thc.ir land, owned and possesse<l th r ,t Lgh a chain ol title, was erroneouslr. included in revenue Sy.No.S2,' I during the town survey, and such inclusion \\ras already adjudicat .rl by the civil Court in A.S.No.186 ol 1996, which allowed the appezrl and directed fresh demarcation of lroundaries under the A.P. Survey a:rd Boundaries Act. Despite the finality of thc civil Court decree, thc r..;pondents failed to act on the reprcsentation. The petitioners rely on rr.levant government circulars permitting survey upon request by pri,,:rre individuals and seek appropriatc dircctions to the rcspondents tc I cnduct the survey and hx boundan,:s in terms of thc said decree and r reir representation dated 79.72.2O2,o

4. On rhc other hand, the learned As ii rtant Government Pleader submittcd that, for conducting the surve1,, ,he applicants are required to subntit ern application for survey and c emarcation of the boundaries of th(.ir land by dulv paying the requisitc fee, in accordance with the prescribcd procedure. Upor-r such complizrn :e only the ofhcial respondents u,ill takc necessary action. Therefore, t1.c petitioners may be directed to fil: a fresh application before the c rr Lcerned authority, duly paying the rcquisite fee, and thc same would l.r: considered by the respondent authoritics in accordance with law 7 To Page 3 ol3

5. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court, u,ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh and appropriate application before the respondents for conducting a survey and demarcation of the boundaries of their iand, in accordance with Iaw and the prevailing procedures, within a period of four (4) weeks lrom thc date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon reccipt of such application, the respondents shali consider the same in accordance with law and the applicable procedure, and pass appropriate orders as expediliouslv as possible, preferabiy within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter.

6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/ A. RINIVASA REDDY A NT REGIST CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreta ta State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Ctmmissioher, Survey and Settlement Land Records of Telangana Hyderabad. The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad. The Tahsildar, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, [OUT] One.CC to SRI B.MOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 a 4 6 7 SA GJP ,1 i: .i' i' r., ir :: l'1ti.?- '\,+.\ 7 i' l[I 2W HIGH COURT DATED:021091202s ORDER WP.No.2512 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t \i\ !u \t