Trimutgherry (pO), SecunderaOaO-sOb'Olt'"--' v. The State of Telangana,. Department of Revenue

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N.MANOHAR counsel for Respondents No.1to3&5 : sRr L.RAVTNDER, AGp FoR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents No.6&7 : SRt SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURT . Counsel for Respondents No.4 : -- W.P.No.7982 oF 2024 Between: 1 2 J 4 lpl .9oghq Rani, Wo. P. Qopi Krishna, Aged 59 years, Occ. Househotd, RIo. Plot No.5, Banjara Nagar, Tririrulgnerry, se-cunOerlOiO. Smt. Alaparty Phani Rani, [{o.. Alaparty Na.gendra Rao, Aged about 74 years, Oc_c._Retired, Rio. 30-265/6012.,^parva(hi tJ"agar, Behin'd dmi"" C.foriv, Oi. A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-500062. M.N. Jayalaxmi, Wio. Sri. M.R.Narasimha Reddy, Aoed about 60 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Plot No.131, S.p.Cotony, fiimitgherry,'S;l;;;;di_ 5000't 5 M.R. Narasimha Reddv. S/o. Late M. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 67 years, o^cc Agricutture, Ryo. ptbt No.tei, 5.p.coro'nv, iri,ilirgh""rry, secunoeiauaJl 500015. AND ...PETITIONERS 1 IE-^:l1t9j_l_I:lg.ryqf,, Department of Revenue, Rep. by its principat secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. 2 3. The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana 4. S.Sanjeev Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, aoed about 67 vears. Husrness, R/o.1-30-349/1, padmavathi Colony, Kanajiguda, Neai tr,,tBR Point, Alwal, Hyderabad-S00 0'15. Occ Fue

5. S.Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 59 years, occ. Business, Fi/o. H.No.1-30-1 '10, Near Petrol Pump, Kanajiguda, Alwal, Hyderabad.

6. Panchagunla Jay Ram, S/o. Late. P. Chandramouli, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Pensioner, Rl/o. Plot No. 803, Block A, lndic Viva Society, Opp. My Home Mangole, Hyderabad.

7. P. Meenakshi, Wo. P.K. Mohana Rao, Aged 73 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 6-1-'1 17, A0O4, Belvedere Garden Phase ll, Padma Rao, Nagar, Secunderabad 25. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are impleaded as per C.O.dl. 18.07.2024 in lA No.312O24. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the highhanded action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the Pattadar passbooks vide T06010030074 in fivour the Respondent No.4 i.e., Singireddy Sanjeev Reddy, recording an extent of Ac.1.28gts in Sy.No.385/tu2 and vide Pattadar Passbook No. T0601030075 in favour of the Respondent No.5 / S. Mohan Reddy recording an extent of Ac.1 .26 gts in Sy.No.385lAl112 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unsustainable, colourable exercise of powers without jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the provisions contemplated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 2020 and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to 3 to cancel the Pattadar Passbook No. 10601003OO74 in favour the Respondent No.4 i.e., Singireddy Sanjeev Reddy, an extent of Ac.1.28gts in Sy.No.385/A/2 and Pattadar Passbook No. T0601030075 in favour of the Respondent No.5 / S.Mohan Reddy to an extent of Ac.1.26gts in. Sy.No.385/N112 duly conducting necessary Denova Enquiry as to the nature of above land in Sy.No.385 situated at Kanajiguda. Alwal Mandal, t\iledchal-Malkajgiri District. A.A.mr 4 oFzot4 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of pattadar passbook No. T06010030014 in favour the Respondent No.4 i.e., singireddy sanjeev Reddy, an extent of Ac..r .2ggts in Sy 'No.385/4/2 and Pattadar passbook No. T0601030075 in favour of the Respondent No.5 i s.Mohan Reddy to an extent of Ac.1.26gts in sy.No.3B5/A/1/2 situated at Kanajiguda, Arwar Mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri District pending disposal of the main Writ petition in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. S.Sanjeev Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, aoed about 67 years, Occ. Business, R/o.'t-30-349/1 , padmavathi Coton'y,, XEna;igudi, N"rl f;bi F;;i Point, Alwal, Hyderabad-S00 0.15. S.Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra tsusiness, Ri"/o. H.No.i -30-.110, Near Hyderabad. aged about 59 years, occ. Pump, Kanajiguda, Alwal, Reddy, Petrol 2 AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.4&5 1 2 3 4 !fl..9o!ng Rani, Wo. p. Gopi Krishna, Aged 59 years, Occ. Househotd, Rl/o. PIot No.5, Banjara Nagar, Tririrulgnerrv, se"cunOeriUiO. Smt. Alaparty Phani Rani, {lo, Alaparty Nagendra Rao, Aged about 74 years, oc^c. Retired, Rio. 30-265/60t2, pirvafui ruigii Behin'd 6mt"* c"r.irv,bi. A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-500062. M.N. Jayalaxmi,. Wo Sri. M.R.Narasimha Reddy, Aoed about 60 years, Occ. H-o-use wife, R/o. ptot No.131, S.p.Cotony, iiimilghe"y, S;i,;;e;#J_ 5000'15 M.R. Narasimha Reddv. S{g !gt" y:Earya Reddy, Aged about 67 years, o^c^c Agricutture, Ryo. ptbulo.iii, S.p.cordnv, iri,iiirgn-"rry, secunaeiJoail 500015. ... RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 5 lP_^911t"j1_1:l_r,ryqf,. Department of Revenue, Rep. by irs principat 6. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. 7. The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandat, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana 8. Panchagunla Jay Ram, S/o. Late. p. Chandramouli, Aged about 72 years, Opi,. M; Occ. Pensioner,'R/o. ptot. No. 803, Block A,- fndic Home Mangole, Hyderabad. 'Viv"a -SJc-i;tr,

9. P. Meenakshi, Wo. P.K. J\Iohana Ra_o, Aged 73 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 6-1-1 '17, 4004, Betvedere GirdEn pfra'se fl,'pil;a-R;: N;g;;: Secunderabad 25. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are impleaded as per C'O.dt. 18'07'2024 in lA No.312O24. ...RESPONDENTS 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 orders dated 26.03.2024 in l.A.No. 1 0f 2024 in W.P.No. 7982 0l 2024 passed by. this Hon'ble court and consequently dismiss the writ petition by imposing exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.LAKSHMIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondents No.4&5: SRI S.NAGESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No'6&7 : SRI SRINIVASA BODDULURI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN W.P. Nos.25248 2507 1 AND 7982 0F 2024 COMMONORDER: . Heard Mr. K. Jamali, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25248 of 2024, Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 and Mr. N. Manohar, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.p. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. L. Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 in W.p. Nos.2524g and 7982 of 2024 and respondent Nos.l to 3 and 5 in W.p. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in W.P. Nos.25248 of 2024 and2507l of 2024, Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, while Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024.

2. As the /rs involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same though the petitioners are different, all these writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed ofby way of this common order. However, for the sake of convenience. the 2 Wt'\o 252-18 of 1024 & batch K -,J pafties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in W'P' No.25248 of 2024.

3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions and resllondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that thel are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots in Survey Nos.374, 378. 37g, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of .Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.Theyhavepurchasedthesameunderdifferentregistered sale deeds way back in the years 1989 and 1990 Alt the plot owners have organized themselves and formed an Association in the name and style of 'Green Fietds Plot Owners Association''

4. When some unknown persons claimed right, title and interest over the said property under the guise of false ORC, their association preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District chatlenging the said ORC. The said appeal was allowed. Chaltenging the same, the third parties carried the matter to this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No'34970 of 1997 ' The same was heard and decided atong with W.A. No.806 of 1999 remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy I 3 KL,] wP No 25248 of2024 & batch District for fresh consideration. The Joint Collector conducted a denovo inquiry in File No-Fl l4578llgg8, and vide orders' dated

29.04.2002 held that the Inamdars and persons claiming through the Inamdars and protected tenants were never in possession of the subject lands as on 01.07.1973 and accordingly set aside the said ORCs issued vide proceedings No'L/4062l1993 and Ll406311993 '

5. The said order dated 29'04'2002 was challenged by the third parties by way of filing writ petitions vide W 'P ' Nos' 1 1777' 14175 and 18107 of 2002,23732 of 2003 and C'R'P' No'4830 of

2003. Vide order dated 29-12-2005, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions upholding the order dated 29'04'2002' The petitloner, Mr. P. Dayanand, in W'P' No'14175 of 2002 carried the matterbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtvideS'L.P.(Civil) No.2963 of 2006, which was also dismissed on17'04'2006' He filed a review petition videRP' (C) No'972 of 2006 and the same wasalsodismissedon08.11.2006.Thereafter,hefiledCurative Petition (C) No.l03 of 2007 in the said review petition and the same was also dismissed. 4 Kt_,1 wP No 25248 of 102,1 & batch

6. Even the petitioner in W.P. No. 11777 of 2002 filed SLP vide SLP (C) No.8754 of 2006 challenging the common order dated29.12.2005 and the same was also dismissed on 03'07 2006'

7. During the said interregnum period, respondent No' I had issued a G.O.Ms.No. 166, dated 16.06.2008 for regularization of land. The petitioners herein availed the said scheme' They submitted application by paying necessary charges. Since the official respondents did not consider the said applications, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W -P - No. I I 78 of 2009, and this Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the applications submitted by the individual plot owners of the aforesaid Association under G.O.Ms.No. 166' Therealier, the aforesaid Association also filed another writ petition vi':le W 'P ' No.1606 of 2010, and this Court vide order dated 29.03.2011 directed the District Collector to complete the regularization process within three (03) months lrom the date of said order.

8. The said Dayanad also filed a writ petition vr2le W.P' No.3000 of 201 I . wherein this Court directed the District Clollector ) 5 KL,J wP No 25248 of2024 & barch to consider the objections filed by him while deciding the regularization appl ications.

9. Vide letter dated 06.12.2008, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to process the regularization applications of individual members. Thereafter, the District Collector afforded opportunity to both the parties and passed order dated 15.03.2015 holding that the land is goverrrment land and the applicants are eligible, but subject to the outcome in W.P. No.15895 of 201O, which is still pending for adjudication before this Court.

10. The Plot owners of the aforesaid Association filed one more writ petition vide W.P. No. I 178 of 2009, wherein this Court directed the District Collector to regularize the plots of individual owners in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No. 166. While so, the unofficial respondents herein filed a civil suit vide O.S. No.98 of 2O2l for perpetual injunction belore [X Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in Survey No.375 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. As against the same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021, and the same was also dismissed by leamed Principa[ District 6 Ki..j WP No 1i2.18 of1024 & batch Judge-cum-Firmity Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri Distr ict on 21.02.2023. As against the said dismissal, the unofficial respondents preferred a second appeal vide S'A' No 425 of 2023 befbre this Cotrrl and the same is pending' I 1. Ignoring the above checkered history, the District Collector issued pattadar passbooks in favour ol the unofficial respondents vide pattadar passbook Nos'T06010030074 and T0601030075 in respect ofthe land admeasuring Acs'l'28 guntas and 1.26 guntas in Survey Nos.385iAl2 and 385lNll2' respectively, by recording that they purchased the said land on

17.07.2023. Further, respondent Nos'3 and 5 conducted a survey on 25.07 .2023. Before issuing the aforesaid pattadar passbooks' the official respondents did not put the petitioners on nolice and afford them an opportunity' Therefore, the said pattadar passbooks are liable to be cancelled and so also the panchanattta conducted on 25.07.2023 in respect of the land in Survey No'3E5 '

12. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of the Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, wherein it is stated that as per Khctsra Pafutni i.e .. 195f4-55, the t t 7 WP No 25248 of2o24 & batch KL.J land in Survey No.385 to an extent of Acs.l2.09 guntas was classified as Inam and recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain as Inamdar, and possession column, the name of Shiva Lachaiah was recorded as protected tenant, and so also as per Sessala pahani i.e., 1955-58. As per the pahani for the year 2015-16, the land in Survey No.385/A to an extent of Acs.5.09 guntas, Survey No.385/AA to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas and Survey No.385/E to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas is classified as Inam patta and recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain and others as pattadars, and in possession column as plots. As per the new ROR Act,2020, respondent No.2 - the District Collector is competent authority for cancellation of passbooks.

13. Whereas, the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P, No.7982 of 2024 filed counter opposing the claim of the petitioners and contending as follows: i) Originally the total extent of land in Survey No.385 of Kanajiguda Village is Acs.l2.09 guntas, and the same was recorded in the name of Mr. Saber Hussaini as Inamdar 8 KLJ WP No 2i2.t8 ot 1024 & batch ii) Mr.Saber Hussaini had four sons and the afbresaid extent of Acs.l2.09 guntas of land rvas devolved in favour of Mr. Syed Kutubuddin Hussain, who in tum gifted the same to his son, Mr. Akbar Nizamuddin. iii) The father of these respondents, Mr. Ramachandra Reddy and another were occupants/possessors of the total extent of Acs.12.09 guntas in Surwey no.385. 'Ihe father of these respondents was in possessiofi of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas ln Survey No.385 since 1954-55. iu) 'Il-re father of these respondents was leaseholder of the aforesaid property, and as per Koulnama ([easi: deed), the koul (lease) amount was being paid regularly to one Mr. Shivalingam, who was managing the property on behalf of the owners. v) After the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, their father and one Mr. Narasimha Reddy approached the lnams 'lribunal to record their names as lnantdars. After the death of their father, the petitioners herein alor-rg with ! 9 KL.J WP No.25248 of2024 & barch their brother, Mr. S. Malla Reddy filed a s.it vide O.S.No. 115 of 1987 on the file of the Districr Munsif to declare them as possessors of the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas, along with their paternal uncle as Kabzadars since 1954-55. Accordingly, the MRO, Malkajgiri had passed the orders in their favour vide fileNo.Ll2977/1987 and, also issued relevant pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their names. vi) These respondents had also approach ed, the Inams Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas on

16.09.1988. The same was sent to the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri for preliminary enquiry vide proceedings dated 03.12.1988. Upon conducted on .enquiry

24.03.1989 and final enquiry, the Inams Tribunal passed thejudgment dated 02.09.1989 holding rhat the said extent of Acs.5.00 guntas has been given equally to these respondents and Mr. S. Malla Reddy and the same shall be implemented after payment of Rs.432l-, 10 I,L.J u'P ).lo 15218 oi 2024 & hatch Rs.200.60ps. and Rs.400/- in lumpsum or in ten (10) equal instalments by them vii) Accordingly, these respondents along with their brother paid the said entire premium through Challan No. 124, dated 08.09. 1989 of SBH City Branch and thereupon their names were directed to be recorded as owners ofthe land vide order dated 16.02.1990. Their names were accordingly recorded as the owners of the subject property and continued to be in peaceful possession and ownership ofthe subject propefty viii) When Some unknown persons were try ing to dispossess these respondents, they filed a suit vzZe O.S. No.98 of 2021 seeking perpetual inj unction. Llowever, the same was dismissed. The appeal pleferred vide A.S.No.53 of 2021 was also dismissed 'fhey have also filed second appear vzde S.A. No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending. Interim slay was granted by this Court in the said.second appeal on 1t.12.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2023. ( a KLJ Wl'] No.25248 ot2024 & barch ix) While so, these respondents liled an application dated

15.07.2023 seeking demarcation of land in Survey No.385. The Tahsildar, Malkajgiri, vrde endorsement dated25.07.2023 confirmed the survey and conducted panchanama with the local sketch. Thus, the location sketch clearly shows that the lands in Survey Nos.383, 384,379,386 and 391 are bounded by Survey No.385. x) As far as the petitioners' claim is concemed, as ger their sale deeds, their plots are in Survey Nos.378, 379,381and 386 and there is no relerence with regard to survey No.3 85. Whereas, the land of these respondents is in Survey No.385. xi) The proceedings of the Joint Collector and the RDO and also the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not in respect of the land in Survey No.385. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE CO URT:

14. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and pqssessors of the plots and also residential houses and respondent 12 k t-,1 u'P No 2i2-18 o1 2024 & balch Nos.6 and 7 i.e. S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy, claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.385/A/2 and 385All/2 situated at Kanagiguda Village, FVo Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

15. Thc parliculars of plot numbers, extent, survey number, sale deed number and date etc. of the petitioners in W.P.No.2507l of 2024 are as mentioned below:- SI No Name o1' petitioner Plot Number Extent Sale deed Sy.. Situated Sq.yds No&Date Nos a1 W. Prakash 7 267 2969/1989, 26.07.1989 2 G.S.Ratnam & 400 45 16lP I188/1990, 26.04.1990 J Erhi ra.lu 9/P 150 H.No.l- 30-7315 302/1995, 01.02.1995 Kanagiguda Village. I I/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal- Malkaj giri District 3 78. 379. 3 81. 386

378. 17q 38r. 386

371. 378. 3'79. 381. 386 wP No 25248 of202.+ & barch Kt-.J W.P.No.25248 of 2024 SI Name of No. Plot Nos Extent Sale Sy.Nos. Sq.yds Sinrated at petitioner B. l,eela and brother B.Vasanth B.S.Subramanv 13 267 No.& Date 998/1989. l 7.03. 1989 t4 267 997 /1989, N.Srinivasa Rao l0 267

17.03. r 989 3401/1990, 3 1.08. r 990 378,379,

381.386 Kanajiguda village, Hlo Alwal Mandal Mcdchal- Matkajgiri District K.Srikanth Raj 20 267 3403t1990,

13.08.1990 (succeeded fiom his father K.Ganeshraj) W.P.No.7982 of 2024 SI Name of No Plot Nos Extent Sale deed Sy. Nos. and Sq.yds No & Date Situated at petitioner Smt. I(ani Sobha 47 46/P (46A) & 400 2207/1989, 24.05.1989 378, 379, 381,386 Alaparlhy l'haniraj H.No.32- Plot No.28 267 332n996,

15.02. 1986 Situated Kanajiguda village, H/o Alrval Mandal 2 3 4 I 2 t4 WP No.]5248 (.t2024 & balch KI-,J ( Medchal- Matkajgiri District J M.N 35 267 820612014,

31.r2.2014 Jayalakshmi (Succeeded husband N{.R. Narasimha Reddl') 4 M.R. l6 261 820512014, Narasimha Rcddl Panchagundla Jay Ram (R.6) l-s 3r.12.2014 200 47 il992,

06.01.1992 P. Meenakshi (R 7) t9 r5lP 334 43t1992,

06.01 .1992 5 6 AIt the petitioners in three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors ol the aloresaid open plots and residential houses basing on the aloresaid registered sale deeds situated in Sy.Nos.378. 179, 381 and 386 of Kanajiguda village, FVo. Alwal, Manda[, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

16. Sri S.Sanjeev Reddy, the unofficial respondent jn all the aforesaid writ petitions is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessrlrs of the land admeasuring Ac.1.28 guntas in Sy.No.3il5/ et 12 and Sri S.Mohan Reddy, respondent No.7 a'. t5 Kt.,l wP No 2i248 of2024 & barch claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.385/eol1/2 situated at Kanajiguda village, LVo Alwal Mandal, Medchat - Malkajgiri District.

17. In proof of their respective claims, the petitioners in all the aloresaid three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982l2024 filed, copies of the registered sale deeds and also link documents. Perusal of the same would reveal that they have purchased the subject plots from Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain s/o late Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain

18. In the recitals of the said sale deeds, it is mentioned that their vendors i.e. Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and Sri Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain were the owners and pattadars ol the land admeasuring 15000 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.378 , 379, 385 and 386 situated at Kanajiguda Village, FVo Alwal Mandal. He has entered into agreement of sale dated 08.1 I . 1975 with the original owners, who failed to execute the registered sale deeds in his favour Therefore, he has filed O.S.No.38 of 1989 for specific perfotmance of agreement of sale. The same was decreed on 1 3.02 1 989 Err: 16 I.L.J U'P No 2i248 of 2024 & batch t Therefore.asnomineeofthepurchasers'hehasexecr-rtedthe aforesaid registered sale deeds in favour ol writ Petitioners in all respondent Nos.6 and '7 in the three writ Petitions and W.P.No.7982 of 2024'

19. Whereas, Sri S'sanjeev Reddy' and Sri S' Mohan Reddy i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W'P'No'25248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024 and respondent Nos'4 and 5 in W'P'No'7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors df the aforesaid land in Sy'Nos' 378, 31g' 385 and 386' According to them, their father Ramachandra Reddy and another were occupants of land in Sy.No.385 admeasuring Ac'12'09 guntas' Tbeir father was in possession of Ac 5 '00 guntas of tand in Sy'No 3 85 since 1954 and 1955.

20. Perusat of the record would reveal that the said Sri Sanjeev Reddy and Sri Mohan Reddy filed a suit vide O'S'No'98 of 2O2l against Y.Ravinder and 6 others for perpetual injunction in respect of open land to an extent of Ac'05'00 guntas out of Ac. 12.09 guntas in Sy.No'385 situated at Kanajiguda viltage' H/o Alwal, Medchal - Matkajgiri District The said suit was dismissed I t7 KL.] WP No.25246 0f2024 & barch on 27.10.2021 by learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2l. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, they have preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.53 of202l . Learned Principal Disrrict Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District dismissed the said appeal on 21.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, they have filed second appeal vide S.A.No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending before this Court. This Courl granred interim order dated 11.12.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 of 2023.The said second appeal is pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting.

22. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions contend that the subject plots are part and parcel of Greenheld colony. They are in possession of the subject plots. They have narrated about filing of appeals, writ petltions, CRPs etc. There is no need of referring the same in detail in view of the lis involved in all the aforesaid three writ petitions.

23. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.79B2 of 2024 are aggrieved by 18 KTJ WP No.l524S of2024 & barch t) the survey dated 25.07'2023 conducted by Tahsildar' Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal and also the panchanama in respect of the land in Sy.No.385. According to them' Tahsildar and Mandal Surweyor of Alwal Mandal conducted survey on 25 '07 '2023 on the request made by the said S. Sanjeev Reddy and S'Mohan Reddy who tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their respective plots'4-rouses There are 600 house plots in the said lay out' They have obtained the atbreEaid ordersfromlhisCourttoconsidertheirappticationsseekingLRS' They are in possession of the respective plots Even then' Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal, conducted survey without putting them on notice and affording them an opportunity Tahsildar' Mandal Sun'eyor, Alwal did not even put olher interested parlies on notice and afforded them an opportunity' [n fact' there is no agricultural land available in Sy'No 385 as clairned by the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy' Part of the property is in Alwal Municipality. Therefore, Tahsitdar, Alwal cannot issue latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds in lavour ol the said S Sanieev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy dated 17 '07 '2023 ' Therelore' issuance l9 KL,J WP No 25248 of2024 & batch of pattadar passbooks in their favour is in violation of procedure laid down under ROR Act,2020. Thus, the survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 are also in violation of the principles of hatural justice, procedure taid down under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and the guidelines issued by CCLA, for conducting survey from time to time and principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court.

24. Und,er the guise of the said survey, respondent Nos.6 and 7 S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy tried to inrerfere with the possession of the petitioners in all the three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.p.No.79g2 of 2024. Challenging the said action of Tahsildar and Mandal Surrreyor of Alwal Mandal, lhe petitioners filed the present wril perilions.

25. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7 i,e. S. Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy, in W.P.No.2507l of 2O24 and W.p.No.25248 of 2024 and respondenr Nos.4 and 5 in W.p.No.79g2 of 2023 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property. On their application, the Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, has conducted surwey, drawn panchanama strictly ln 20 KL.J u'P No 2i118 of202{ & batch (l accordance with taw and issued latest passbooks dated 17 '07 '2023 in their favour. There is no error in it'

26. 'fhe petitioners are claiming that they are the owners of the respective ptots in Survey Nos'374' 378' 379' 381' 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of Atwal Village and Mandal' Medchal - Malkajgiri District' Whereas' they are clairning right overtheaforesaidlandinSy.No.385ofKanajigudaVitlage,FVo Alwal Mandal. Therefore, the plots of the petitioncrs are different to the land claimed bY them'

27. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions and rcspondent Nos'6 and7inW.P.No.7892of2024areclairningthattheyareabsolute owners and possessors of the openlresidential plots in Survey Nos.374, 378, 37g,381, 385 and 386' situated at Kanajiguda I.IamletofAlwalVillageandMandal,Medcl-ral-Matkajgiri District, basing on the registered sale deeds'

28. Whereas, respondent Nos'6 and 7' S Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy are claiming that they are the owners of the 2t KL.J WI' No 25246 ot2024 & barch aforesaid land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, there is dispute with regard to the identification ofthe land.

29. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have filed plans- cum- lay outs issued by the then grampanchayat. According to them, there are 600 residential plots. Most of them constructed houses and living in the said houses. In proof of the same, they have filed photographs.

30. Perusal of the record would reveal that latest passbobks issued in favour of S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy are dated

17.07.2023. By the said date, Kanajiguda Village FVo Alwal Mandal is merged in GHMC limits. Therefore, without considering the said fact,3'd respondent has issued passbooks in their favour. The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2020 (for short, 'ROR Act, 2020') is not applicable to non-agricultural properties. It is intended flor the agricultural lands and also for the lands not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture including horticulture. Admitredly, land in Sy.No.385 is in GHMC limits of Alwal Circle, without considering the said aspects, latest e-pal€books were issued to them. 22 KL.J \tIP No 25218 ff2024 & bdch t.) 31 . Perusal of the panchanama dated 25.07 -2023 and also counter filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 would reveal that the petitioners and other plot owners were not put on notice and afforded opportunity while conducting survey. The aforesaid surwey numbers wherein the petitioners plots are situated are abutting to the land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, Tahsildar- Mandal Surveyor have to necessarily put the petitioners arrd other interested pafties on notice. Without putting the petitio ners. and other interested parties on notice, the Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor Alwai Mandal, conducted survey dated 25-07.2023 Therefore, the aforesaid survey dated 25.07.2023 conducted by Tahsitdar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Acl, 1973, guidelines issued by CCLA and also principle laid down by this Court in catena of decisions. Therefore, survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal are liable to be set 23 KI-.J WP No 25248 of2024 & balch

32. It is also relevant to note that the suit filed by S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy vide O.S.No.98 of 2021 for perpetual injunction before IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in Survey No.375 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021, and the same was also dismissed by leamed Principal District Judge-cum- Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District on 2l .02.2O23. As against the said dismissal, they have preferred second appeal vide S.A. No.425 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted interim injunction on 11.12.2023. During pendency of said Second Appeal and subsistence of the interim order, the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy cannot request Mandal Surveyor and Tahsildar to conduct survey and fix boundaries. [f there is any problem with regard to the property claimed by them, including identification aspect, they have to take steps by fiting a petition in the said Second Appeal seeking surwey of [and. But they have not filed any such application. Therefore, on the said ground also the impugned survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 of 1^ (L.l wP No 2i248 o1202.1& batch Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal, are liable to be set

33. Vjewed from any angle, the survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal are in violation of principles of natural justice, in 'violation of the guidelines issued by CCLA from time to time fbr conducting survey, procedure taid down under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, principle laid down by this Court and Apex Couft. 'Il.rerefore, the survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 are liable to be set aside. Conscquently, passbooks issued in favour of Sri S.Sanjeeva Reddy and Sri S.Mohan Reddy are also cancelled.

34. Considering the aforesaid issues and also judgment and decree in O.S No.98 of 2021 dated25.07.2021, A.S.No.53 of 2021, dated 21.02.2023, pendency of S.A. No. 425 of 2023 and interim order dated l1 .02.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 o12023, the 2nd respondent - the District Collector, Medchal Malkajgirl l)istrict is directed to conduct enquiry in detail by putting said S Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy - respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in W.P.Nos.23248 of 2024 and 2507 | of 2024, the rvrit petitioners in 25 KI,J wP No.252.18 of2024 & barch all three writ petitions, respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. He shall also consider the fact that the ROR Act, 2020 is'not applicable to the urban properties and the tand in Sy'No'385 is in GHMC limits. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

35. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions 4re disposed oL Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REG]STRAR CTION OFFICER To,

9. 10 The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Department of Revenue' Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-TS The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgifi District-TS The Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal, Mecichal-lvlalkalgiri District-TS One CC to SRI K.JAMALI, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI S.LAKSHMIKANTH, Advocate. IOPUC] One CC to SRI N.MANOHAR, Advocate. [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana' touTl One CC to SRI S.NAGESH REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO BODDULLURI, Advocate' [OPUC] 11 Two CD Copies. s BSK HIGH COURT DATED:1 010212025 /":=: ..,, s iAl',. < (r :) L) 2 o tiB r$6 6) ,B.t * * :-:,:::-ji COMMON ORDER WP.No.25248, 2507 1 & 7982 oI 2024 a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS (9* W