High Court · 2025

Petition.under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. direction, order or orders declaring the actions of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 in issuing notice date 25 10'2024' 31'12'2024 and 08.01 2025 pUrsuanttotheAppealfiledbytheUnofficialRespondentNo.6fordemarcationof survey numbers and fixing boundaries for Sy No 133, 134 and 156' situated at AmeenpurVillage,MandalandMunlcipalitySangareddyDistrictTelangana without following the due procedure as contemplated under Set.tlon 11 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 as illegal, arbitrary- and unconstitutiona l, and consequently set-aside the impugned notice dated 08.01 .2025 along with the consequential proceedings of the Respor dent No. 4- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 .Petition under Sioction 151 CPC praying that in the circumst;.tnces stated in the affidavit filed in sup:ort of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to grant stay of All consequential proceedings pursuant to the impugneri notice dated 0810112025. pending drs;posal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: G. Vijaya Krishn,r Raju, S/o G.V. Rama Raju Age 63 years, Ocr; BUsiness, R/o H No. 2-2-2i\122115, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad ..PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT No.6 AND

1. M/s Netaji Plot Owners Welfare Association, Rep. by its General Secretary P. Upendra Lakshrran Rao, S/o Late Sri Sheshagiri Rao, ,Age 59 years, R/o. H.No.LlG-375, Rc,ad No.3, KPHB, Hyderabad.

2. Sri. Thiyyagura l(oti Reddy, S/o T. Rami Reddy, Age 52 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 13-1-344, Near Sai Baba Temple, Macharla, Ountur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 426.

3. Bandagonda Sa yanarayana Reddy. S/o Bandagonda Gopal lleddy, Age 47 years, Occ Bu; ness, R/o H.No. 2-22-311116214, Flat Nto. 601, SVP Residency, Roarl No.7, Western Hills, Near ICICI Bank, Add.,rgutta Society, Kukatpally, Hyder,abad, Telangana - 500072. ...RESPONDENTSi WRIT I'ETITIONERS

4. The State of Telzrngana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenrre (Survey and Settlement) lepartment, Secretariate Building, Hyderabad.

5. The Commissioner Survey and Land Records, Telangana State, Hyderabad 6. The Regiolal Deputy Director, (Survey and Land Records), Sur'rey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyrlerabad.

7. The Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Sangareddl District. 8. The Deputy lnspr:r:tor of Survey, Sangareddy Region, Sangarecrdy District ...RESPONDENTS/ RESt:'ONDENT No. 1TO5 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order in c,ated 28.0.1 .2025 passed in l.A.No.1 ot 2025 in w.P.No.2295 of 2025 in interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM -.'- Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY W.P.NO: 4916 OF 2025 Between: 1 2 J Jagatapi Prasad, S/o Late Papayya, {ged about 4^9 Years, Occ. Business, R/6. Plot No.70iA. Flat No 202,' V.R. Colony, Gokul Plots, Kukatpally, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad-500085. 'Sr6edhar Reddy, S/o. M. Narasa Reddy, Aged. qfout 46 Years' Motakaila Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.624, Vasantha nagar, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hvderabad. Telanoana State - 500085. kl Wiliia.r, Sio KlSamson, Aged about 67 Years, Occ. Retd , R/o.Kotravari Street, Bapatla, Guntur District. .,.'ETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Survey and Settlement) Department, Secretariate Buildrng, Hyderabad- . .

2. The Commissioner Survey and Land Records, Telangana State, Hyderabad' 3. The Regional Deputy Director, (Survey and Land Records), Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

4. The Assiitant Diiector, (Survey and Land Records) Sangareddy District 5. The Deputy lnspector oi Survey, Sangareddy Region, Sangareddy^ District' 6. G. Viiava (rishna Raiu, S/o G.V. Rama Raju Age. 63 years, Occ. Business, Rio Hi\o 2-2-23t22i15,BaghAmberpet,Hyderabad ...RESPoNDENTS Petition undei Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the actions of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing notices dated 31-12-2024 and 08-01-2025 pursuant to the Appeal filed by the Unofficial Respondent No.6 far demarcation of survey numbers and fixing boundaries for sy.No.133, 134 and 156, situated at Ameenpur Village, Mandal and I\/unicipality, sangareddy District. Telangana state without following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 11 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act' 1923 as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional, and consequently set aside the impugned notices dated 31-12-2024 and 08-01-2025 along with the consequential proceedings of the Re..,pondent No.4 and further direct the Resporrdent No.4 to dispose of the Appeal liled by the 6th Respondent by a reasone d order, after hearing the Petitioners and other parties and communicate the same to the parties. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under Se,r;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstarrces staied in the affidavit filecJ in supl;,:rt of the petition, the High court may be ple'ased to grant stay of all consequential further proceedings pursuant to the impLgned notices dated 31-12-2024 and Cti-O1-2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petit on Counsel for the Petitiorrers: SFll PRABHAKAR PERI Counset for the Resporrdent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respor.rdent No.6: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.2295 and 4916 of2025 COMMON ORDER: The issue involved in both the writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.2295 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a utit in the nature of a wit of mandamus or ong other appropiate uit, dtrection, order or orders declaing the actiott-s of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing notice dated 25-10.2024, 31.12.2024 qnd O8.01.2025 pursuant to the Appeal fited. bg the unolficial respondent No.6 Jor demarcation of surueg numbers and f-xing boundaies fcr Sy.iVos.l33, 134 and 156, situated at Ameenpur Villoge, Mandal and MunicipaLttg, Sarryareddg Distict Telangana Luithout folloulirtg the due procedure as contemplated under Section 1 1 of fie Telatgana Surueg and Boundaries Act, 1923 as itlegal, arbttrary and uncor*tihttional and consequentlg set-aside the impugtled notice dated 08.01-2025 aLorlg uttth the consequential proceedings of respondent No.4 and to pass..." 3. W.P.No.4916 ot 2025 is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Wit of Mandomus or ang other appropiate Wit Order or direction declaring the actions of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing notices dated 31/ 12/ 2024 qnd 08/ 01/ 2025 pursuont to the Appeal rtled bg the unofftcial respond.ent No.6 for demarcctiion of surueg nurnbers and fxing bounQaries pr Sg.Nos.l33, 134 and 156 situated at Ameetpur Village, Mandal and Municipalitg Sangareddg Distict Telangana State ruithout folloiing the due procedure as contemplated under Section 11 oJ the Telqngana Surueg and Boundanes Act, 1923 as illegal, arbitrary arul unconstituttonol and con-sequentlg set aside the impugned notices dated 31/12/2024 and 0*/01/2025 atong uith the consequential proceedings of the Respondent No.4 and furtler direct the respondent No.4 to dispose of the Appeal jiled by tlrc 6h respondent by a reasoned order after heaing the petitioners and other parties and comrnunicate tfle some to the parties

4. For the sake o[ convenience , W.l).No.2295 of 2025 is taken up as leading case to decide t]re lis in these case s. - 2

5. The brief fa<ls of the case are stated as urder It iS stated that the Petitioner No 1-M/s Netaji Ploi Owners Welfare Associatictl, was formed for the beneht and n'ellare 'rf the plot lands in Sy.Nos 128, 130 and 135 siluated ht purchasers of th: It is further stated that the membt rs of the Ameenpur Vi11age. Association purchrlsed various plots in the layout approv':d by the HyderabadUrbatrDevelopmentAuthority(HUDA)underregistered .by conducting surveY saledeeds.ltisal,;ostatedthatwhenthedisputesaroseuithregard to identilrcation :rnd locafizatior of the piots purchast d petitioners formir.g part of Sy'No'128' 130 and 135' rvith the adjacent lands in SyNos l3O, 133, 134' 152' 153 and 156 oi Ameenpur Village, an appli<:rrtion was submitted for conducting surey on the file of respondenl No'4 and a notice d'ated 07 'O9 2O18 was issued for and accordinglY, surveY was cond rcted and drawn on 18.09'2018' Challenging the survey panchanama was report, resPondent No 6 herein has ltled W'P No' 12O0 of 2 )19 on the file of this Court and this Court' vide order dated 3 09 '2023 disposed of the srid writ petition with the following observa tions: bot! t!,e-Xorties' 'he utrit .7. In utew oJ the same, llith the consent .of tle 'e' ned!! of Detition is dis,t sed of pt'*iin"i the petittiner -to .o-uotl -,'^a"i i.,n- or to ea' 1s2s within a period of three i,;;;Zl; ;;",;;;; weeks from tt,(, dote ol ,.riii oi o copg of t.h.is order..ln cast, if the p"tid""ii within - the .tn.e st pulaled aDpeal is pr:.ferred tg --o'ihoi'y concem.ed. shall t on'si er and 'i[- #iii""J.""i itr. opptirou ';;;;;;;i;;. ,o*"Zi meits in o"toidon"t tuith laut o's expediti tuslg as datt of fitins ;:::ii.'",';;t;|,i. *itna a peiod of of the appeal )t 1 the pennonir, Ag ditg putting lhe interested pe sons on iafi." iii"at"t respondent No's " .three .^*.'!: {:?:^:!' -ti .7 7 h 3 It is stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the respondent No.6 has hled an appeal. Stating that pending adjudication of the appeal, the respondent No.4 have issued impugned notices dated

25.1O.2024, 31.12.2024 and O8.01.2025 for conducting survey of the subject lands and alleging that the said notices are contrary to the directions issued by this Court, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

6. A counter affidavit has been hled by the respondent No.6 claiming to be Malaging Partner of M/s.Keerthi Kaveri Properties stating that the company is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.76-O7 gts in Sy.No.133, Ac.19, 13 gts in Sy.No. 134 and Ac. 18-10 gts in Sy.No.156, total admeasuring Ac.53.30 gts having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2903/2003 dated 31.03.2003. It is further stated that the writ petitioners disputing the boundary of the lands of the respondent No..6-company, filed an application seeking to conduct survey by the As'sistant Director and the Assistant Director in terms of various circulars issued under the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short Act, 1923") has conducted survey and fixed the boundaries vide panchanama dated 21.06.2005. Not satisffing with the said survey report, it is stated that the President of the Petitioner No. I -Association made an application dated \: ! 4 ..i.

02.06.2006 on 'he file of respondent No.4 requesting .o conduct survey for the Ie nds in Sy.No.126 to l3T and the respondent No.4 ignoring the earlje r survey conducted on 21.06.2005 again conducted the survey of the property on 16. |0.2006 and 1g.10.2Cr06 r nd passed orders vide Meno No.A3 lS83l2006 dated 13.11.2006 :onfirming that the survey ,:,rnducted earlier is proper and commur icated the said report to th(. Petitioner No. 1 -Association. euestioning the same, Mr. Upendra Laxman Rao, claiming to be the Ser:rele rv of the petitioner No. 1-Association hled a suit vide o.s.No.6.r7 o. 2006 on the file of Principirt Junior civ Judge, Sanga Reddy. It is z rso stated that the responde rrt No.6 herein a,d petitioner No. 1-Association rrrecl I.A.Nos.641 anrl 642l2OOZ for appointment of Advocate commissioner to londuct survey with the assistance of Surveyor and the same were al owed. In pursuance of the same, the sr rrvey was conducted and wlrr:n the report was in favour of respon.den. No.6 the petitioner No.1-lissocaition liled another I.A.No.127/:1009 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the {,ame was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the disr:rissal of r.4.No.127 /2009, tle petitioner No. 1-Association fi1ed c.R.t.No.5145 ol 20O9 on the fitr: of this Court and this Court vrde or< ler dated 04.12.2009 dismisx;ed the said cRp. It is stated that the suit vide o's.No.642/2ooz fired by the petitioner No. 1-Associat ion was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.1t.2OO2. Agg_ieved by -a:rother 5 the same, the petitioner No'1-Association lrled A'S'No'29/2016 on the hle of Principal District Judge' at Sangareddy and the same was dismissed as withdrawn' It is further stated that the survey conducted ot 21.06'2005 and 13'11'2006 have attained finality in view of dismissal of the suit and conhrmed by the appellate Court' It is further stated that when the respondent No'3 without taking into consideration of the earlier orders passed in I'A'Nos'641 and 6421 2OO7 in O'S'No'647/2O06 dated 2l '06'2007 ' has drawn panchanama dated 18'O9 2018, the respondent No 6 herein filed W.P.No.1200/2019 wherein this Court vide order dated 13'09'2023 disposed of the writ petition directing him to avail the remedy of appeal. It is further stated that the respondent No'6 has filed appeal dated 04. 10.2 o23 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.4 has issued impugned notices but the petitioner instead of participating in the survey proposed to be conducted by the Assistant Director has filed the writ petitions and as such the present writ petitions filed are misconceived and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the same. 7 A reply afhdavit has been hled by the petitioners denying the averments made in the counter afhdavit'

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record' 6

9. Sri J. Ramchander Rao, Iearned Senior Counsel apl>earing for the petitioners rrL W.P.No.2295 of 2025 ar,d Sri Peri l)rabhakar, learne d counsel :or the petitioners in W.P.No.49 16 of 12025 have submitted that t:'le members of the petitioner No. 1-As;sociation have purchased vario'-ts plots in Sy.Nos.128, 130 and 1I|5, r;ituated at Ameenpur Villag,: and Mandal, Sangareddy District, undet registered sale deeds in approved layout sanctioned by the HUDA anrl when the disputes arose r,rith regard to identihcation and loceLliza ion of the plots purchased try the petitioners, an application was su rmitted for conducting slrrvc\/ on the lile of respondent No.4 and a n;tice dated 07 .O9 .2018 u,as s;sued for conducting survey and acccrrdin gly, survey was conducted and panchanama was drawn on 18.09.2018. Challenging th,: survey report, the respondent l''1o.6 filed W.P.No. l2OO /2019 on the hle of this Court and thls Court vide order dated i3.09.202!i reiegated the respondent No.6 to hle an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1923 and'even before the rppeal has been decided, -tL.r: respondent No.4 has again issued the impugned notices for coniucting survey and the notices issuel are not sustainable in leL'v and prayed to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugrr:d notices.

10. Per contre, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned coun;el for the respondent No.6 has submitted that 6ft respondent ir; tht Managing 7 Partner of M/s. Keertlli Kaveri Properties and owner of the lands to an extent ofAc.53-30 gts in Sy'Nos.133, 134, 156 purchased under registered sale deed bearing document No.2903/2003 dated

31.03.2003. It is further submitted that earlier on the request of the petitioner No. 1-Association, a survey was conducted by the Assistant Director and a panchanama was drawn on 21.06.2005 and thereafter, again on the request of the petitioner No. 1-Association a re-survey was conducted on 16. 1O.2006 and 18.10.2006 and the respondent No.4 issued a memo dated 13.1 l.2006 conhrming the earlier survey and questioning the same, the petitioner ' No. 1- Association instituted suit vide O.S.No.647/2006 and in terms of the orders passed in LA.Nos.641 and 642 of 2OO7 dated 21.06.2007, survey was conducted by the Advocate Commissioner with the help of the Surveyor and when the report was in favour of respondent No.6 the petitioner No. 1 -Assocaition filed another l-A.No.l27 l2OO9 for appointment of another Advocate Commis5ioner and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.l27 /2009, the petitioner No. 1 -Association hled C'R.P.No'S145 of 2OO9 on the file of this Court and this Court vide order dated 04 .l2.2OOg dismissed the said CRP. Thereafter, the suit vide O.5.No.647 12006 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.1I.2017 and aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner No' 1- Association hled A.S.No.29l2ol8 and the same was dismissed as 8 1 withdrawn. Hav.ng allowed the survey proceedings to attlin hnality by dismissal of the suit and the appeal suit, the petiti'rner No' 1- Asosciation is nc t having any right to dispute the surwey conducted by the Assistant Director and the quasi judicial auttrorit es are not having any pow lr to review the orders passed by the r)ivil Court under the guise cf conducting re-survey. It is further subl nitted that when the sunrel. department without taking into considr:ration the earlier orders passed in CRP Nos.5145/2009 and O S No 647/2006, issued sun'ev r,lport dated 18.09.2018, the respondent No 6 was constrained to hkr W.P.No .I2OO l2ol9 and the same \rras 'lisposed of relegating the r,: spondent No.6 to h1e an appeal ln te 'ms of the orders passecl irL W.P.No.12OOl2Ol9, the respondent No'5 has filed an appeal on 14.10.2023 and as part of deciding appeal, the respondent No.4 has issued impugned notices' Therefbre, there is no illegality or irrepulariS in the procedure adopted by the respondent No.4 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. 1 1. A careful r:;ramination of the facts would reveal thal earlier, on the request of the petitioner No. l-Association, a s urvey was conducted on 21 .06.2005 by the Assistant Director, Surve y and Land Records and patr:hanama was drawn. Having been not setished with the said sulve. report, the Petitioner No. l-Associatior made an 7, 9 application dated 02.O6.2C,06 on the file of respondent No'4 requesting to conduct survey for the lands in Sy'No' 126 to 137 and' the respondent No.4 vide Memo No.A3/583/2.OO6 dated 13'11'2006 conhrmed that the survey conrlucted earlier is proper' It is aiso borne from the record that questioning the Memo dated 13' 11'2006' a suit was hled by the petitioner No. 1-Association vide O'S'No'647/2006 and on the applications hled by the petitioner No' 1-Association and respondent No.6 vide I.A.Nos.641 and' 642 /2OO7 dated 2l '06 '2OO7 ' Advocate Commissioner was appointed. to conduct the survey' In pursuance of the same, the surv'ey was conducted and when the report was in favour of respondent No'6 the petitioner No' 1- Assocaition lrled another l.A.No.l27 l2OO9 for appointment of another Advocate commissioner and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No' l-Association ltled CRP No.5145 l2OO9 on the frle of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order d'ated' 04.12.2O09. Subsequently, the suit vide O.S.No.6a2l2OQ7 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.Il.2017 . Thereafter, an application has been filed seeking to conduct re-survey of the subject lands, which culminated in passing orders in W.P.No. 1200/20 19.

12. As per Circular vide Rc.No'Nl /654311999 d'ated 25'07 2OOl' issued by the Commissioner & Director, Survey Settlement and Land 10 Records, Hyderatrad, against the orders of the Inspector of Survey and Land Recorcts, appeal would lie to the Assistant Direc,_or, Survey and Land Recorcs; and the Assistant Director entertaining .he appeal, shall conduct survey and demarcation. In the instant cas€s, the oply grievance of the petitioners is that pending adjudication of the appeal filed by the res:ondent No.6, the respondent No.4 is r rot having power or authority to conduct the survey. Whereas, the r:ase of the respondent No.6 is that entertaining the appeal, the impugned notices have ber:r issued by the respondent No.4 for r;onducting survey and dema rcation.

13. To resolve the inter se disputes and as it is staterl that the appeal dated O4.1O.2023 hled by the respondent No.6 is pending on the hle of respor:rlent No.4-appellate authority, this Cour.. deems it appropriate that t:nds of justice would be met if the petit ioners are permitted to hle lheir objections, if any, in the pending apF,eal within a period of two(2) ,veeks from the date of receipt of copy of ,-his order. After considering the objections, if any, hled by the petiti rners, the respondent No.4 shall pass a reasoned order detern..ining for conducting of survey of the subject land. In the event of thr appellate authority comin5; to a conclusion that fresh survey t as to be conducted, notict,s; shall bc issued to the patties to the lis or €r,,y other effected pe -sons, and proceed with conducting of l.runey, in , accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight(8) wceks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII ,' SD/.T. JAYASREE D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secreta ry, Revenue (Survey and Settle ent) Department, Secretariate Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana The Commissioner Su rvey and Land Records, Telan gana State, Hyderabad The Regional Deputy Director, (Survey and Land Records), Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad The Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Sangareddy District. The D^eputy- l1sp99t9i of Survgyr Sangareddy Region, Sangareitdy District One CC to lVl/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM. Advocati: IOPUCI One CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, Advocata[OPUi] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Siate of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 '10 To PSK BS b HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.2295 AND 4916 ot 2025 o I ri o 1, + i /-; ( - -a/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 6r'e WN"