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 order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Mandamus questioning the action of Respondent No.3 herein in issuing a memo Dated 18.01 .2025 Vide No.14r 8/R&R/oRRp/2024, without considering ray Representation- Dated os.12.2024 wherein requested for rectification of Boundaries which are wrongly mentioned in the Registered sale Deed Dated 22.02.2018 bearing Document No.241112018 executed by the HMDA as part of R & R policy in respect of Plot No.1274, admeasuring 400 Sq, yds., in Sy.No.507, situated at Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet tvandal, Ranga Reddy District as per the approved Layout is illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 3o0A of the constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to execute the rectification Deed for correction boundaries for Registared Sare Deed Dated 22.02-2018 bearing Document No.241112018 in respect of prot No.1274, admeasuring 400 Sq, yds., in Sy.No.507, situaterJ at Koheda Viilage, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cc urt may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to execute and register rectification deed of boundaries in respect of registered sare Deed Da;ed 22.o2.2o18, bearing Document No.2411 of 2o1B in respect of prot No.1274, adnreasuring 400 sq, yds., in Sy.No.507, situated at Koheda Viilage, Abdulapurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCpLADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SMT. D. MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.54O4 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. D. Madhavi, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. perused the record.

2. Perusa-l of the record would reveal that' 2"d respondent has a-llotted open plot bearing No.I2Z4 admeasuring 400 square yards in Sy.No.5O7 situated at Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of Sri R. Madhava Rao, under a registered plot allotment deed bearing document No.24 11 of 2018. On his death, his son Sri Madhava Arun Kumar Reddy, has executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.12057 of 2O2l dated 2O.t2.2O21

3. According to the petitioner, boundaries in the said plot allotment and sale deed are wronglv mentioned. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated W.P.No 540a oi 2L 2

05.12.2024 to the 3'd respondent with a request to l.; correct the same. Vide Memo dated 18.07.2025, 3'd respondent informed the petitioner as per Circular No.G1/ 1668212012-l dated 14.O9.2O12. and as per G.O.Ms.No.62 MA & UD (H2l Department, dated

21.O2.2OO4, 3.d parties are not entitled lor execution of any registered document including ttLe rectification Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for re<:tihcation of the boundaries. On the said ground, ttre rt:quest made by the petitioner is rejected. Challenging t.he said memo, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. As discussed supra, petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the said property from tht: son of original allottee i.e., Sri R. Madhava Rao. The srlid sale deed is dated 20.12.2021 and the a,llotment deed is dated

22.O2.2078. Admittedly, petitioner is a 1.hird party. He cannot seek for rectihcation of the boundanes. I KI-,J w.P No 5404 of2025 )

5. In the representation dated 05.72.2024, he has stated that to obtain permissions from the concerned Municipalities, he had verihed the subject property with approved layout plan furnished by concerned authorities, upon on verilication, he came to know that the subject property boundaries are wrongly mentioned in the registered sale deed. Therefore, on the said ground he sought for rectification of boundaries

6. As discussed supra, petitioner is claiming that he I I has purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing document No. 12057 of 2O2l dated t I 2O.I2.2O21. Instead of verifying the aforesaid layout and boundaries at the time of purchase, he is now claiming that he has verified the said lay out and submitted representation dated 05.),2.2024 to 3'd respondent requesting rectification of boundaries. Thus, there are several factual aspects which a-re serious and complicated, which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. If 4 the petitioner has any grievance against respondent Nos.2 and 3, he has to file a suit. petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the Memo dated 18.O1.2025 issued by 3.d respondent. Therefbre, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Liberty is graated to petitioner to approach competent civil Court to appraise his grievzrnce. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, .:f aly, pending in the Writ petition shall stand closed. ,* s s ls re r.rsl/n fafl i*t* "--'- "'^'' //TRUE COPY// ,, . it\ i1 ;\ r "i"r,o* oFFrcER I One CC to Sri K. pradeep Reddy, Advocate tOhtiCt Two CCs to Gp for Municinal.Administration Urban Devetopment, High Court for the Srate of Tetangana,'ai HF#Hi6Uii* ' "" One Smt D. t\/adhavi, SC for HMDA[OpUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 ORDER WP.No.5404 of 2025 li3 u'rtl 2025 5 +t ,:.. i- .\: sD L. Lo DISMlSSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS V t ,l IJ