Saraf Praveen Kumar v. '1 . The State of Telangana

9. Sri Sunkari Akhil Goud, S/o Sunkari Nageshwar Goud H. No. 6-gl, Hanumand Gudi, Pulagiri Road, Thimmajipet Nagarkurnool - 509406. 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, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of a ...RESPONDENTS writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, to direct Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 to conduct Survey as per procedure and demarcate the land of the Petitioner in Survey No. 24 in Tammajipet Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District and to prepare a detailed Pachamama of the survey, which shall be duly signed by the officials and the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct Respondent No 8 and 9 not to make any construction on the land of the Petitioner pending the survey of petitioner vide Application No DER022501134826. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. VANKINA ALLU AND PARTNEFI:S Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER I / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY. 1VRIT PETITION No.4780 of 2025 // ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliel "...to issue a writ, direction or order, more parLicularly one in the nature of a writ of maldamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 to conduct Survey as per procedure and demarcate the land of the petitioner in Survey No.24 in Tammajipet Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District and to prepare a. detailed Panchanama of the survey which shall be duly signed by the oflicials and the Petitioner and pass..."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties arld perused the record.

3. It is stated that the grandfather of the petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 15.36 gqntas in Survey No.24 situated at Thimmajipet Village and Mand.al, Nagarkurnool District. It is further stated that a registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner uide gqtt deed No.41 of 2014, dated O2.O1.2O14 and thereafter, the petitioner succeeded the said property. It is further stated that the land , I ___ '-'- ! '- "\ \\ \. \ admeasuring Acs.g.Oo guntas out of Acs. 15.36 guntas was acquired by the State Government for providing house sites to backwarcl classes and some portion of the remaining .land was sold to different persons and the petitioner was left with Acs.2.06 guntas. The case of the petitioner is that in 2022, the petitioner has sold Ac.O.O2 guntas out of subject land admeasuring Acs.2.06 guntas to one Mr. Mudavath Krishna and the petitioner approached Gram panchayat for bu ding permission for constmction of shops and residence in the subject land. As there was dispute that the subject land is forming pa_rt of the land belongs to respondent Nos.S to g, the petitioner was constrained to institute the suit rride O.S.No. 316 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool agajnst the respondents herein. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents instead of contesting the said suir are frequently interfering with the subject Iand which necessitated the petitioner to Iile the application seeking to conduct the survey for identification and localization of the subject land. It is further stated that pursuant to th re application_ submitted by the _-n \ I.,1 r petitioner, respondent No.S-Mandal Surveyor has initially conducted the survey, however, he has not filed any report, in view of the objections raised by respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that taking I I advantage of the same, the respondents are changing the nature of the subject land by proceeding with the constructions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would submit that the petitioner has already instituted the suit uide O.S.No.316 of 2023 against respondent authorities and if the petitioner is aggrieved by not conducting the survey, he is entitled to make appropriate application either for seeking to conduct survey or for injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the construction. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived as he is having an effective and alternative remedy of liling application in the pending civil suit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. l I As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stanrl closed. t \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-L.I,.AKSHMI BABU D PIJry REGISTRAR E:(]TION oFFIcER '1. One ,2. One t CC to M/s. VANKTNA ALLU AND PARTNERS, Advocate tOpUCl CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC tOpUCl lyo""l"3:otffiron REVENUE, Hish court for the state of rerangana at

4. Two CD Cooies BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED:1810212025 / I ORDER WP.No.4780 of 2025 i * 't .-.2. 1 nE ii t;,7 2 5 npn iruf 'j C) * r^t c DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS / b{