High Court · 2025

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) - FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETI TION NO:1 43050F 2025 Between: tvlanchikatla Satyanarayana, S/o .Late Ki?iaiah',-Ag-ed eriine.t, F/o H.No. 2-10-1083, Jyothinagar' Kanmnagar' 56 years, Occ. ...PETIflONER AND

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

2. The District Collector, Peddapally District' Peddapally' 3. The Assistant Director of Survey, Survey and Land Records' Peddapally' PeddaPallY District.

4. The Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District' 5.Thelvlandalsurveyor,RamagundamMandal,PeddapallyDistrict. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionofthe4threspondentinnotconducting localinspectionandsurveyanddemarcationbyusingdigitalsurveyinrespectof the Petition schedule lands in L'G'O P No '1 7 7 oI 2012 on the file of Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani in l'A'No. 76 of 2024 in L'G'O P'No' 177 o12o12dated13-11-2024andSubmittingaVagueandincompleterepdrtdated 15-03-2025 in Letter No.Flt5212025 as illegal' arbitrary and contrary to the Rule 6 oftheRulesandcontrarytoorderpassedbythetrialcourtandconsequently directthe4threspondenttoconductlocalinspectionandSUrVeyandmeasure :".!.':.F7 the petition sc'h'><rurr: rands in L.G.o.p.No. 177 0f 2012,. by usirrg digitar survey technology and sutrrnit a detail report to the learned A.ddit onai District Judge, Godavarikhani. IA NO: 10F 2A25 Petition urrc ()' Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit fil:r1 in supp6rt of the petition, the High Court ma,,, be pleased to stay a, further o'c"::edings in LGOp.No.. 177 0f 2012.n *re fire of Additionar District Judge, o.cavarrkhani ti, the 4th respondents cause nspection and verification ove- rhe' area covered under LGop.N o. 177 0f ..12 by using ratest technorogy as lre' the order in r.A.No. 76 0f 2024 dt. .13-1 1.202.:,. and submit a complete report. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G.SUNDARESAN Counsel for the Resp.ondents: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the f ollowing: ORDER i I t I I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.143O5 of 2025 ORDER: This u,rit pctition is liled seeking to deciare the action of respondent No.4 in not conducting local inspection and survey and demarcation by using digital survey in respect of the petition schedule lands in L.G.O.P.No.177 of 2012 on the file of Addttional District Judge, Godavarikhani, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Disfrict Juclge, Godavarikhani, in l.A-No.76 of 2024 in L.G.O.P.No l77 ot 20 12, datcd 13.\1.2024 and submitting a vague and incomplete report dated 15.03.2024 in Lr.No.Lf 152 12025, as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate relic[s.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective partics and peruscd Llie rctcord

3. [t is stated that the petitioner along with his brolhers, sislers and mother arc the owners and possessors of the lands to an extent of Ac.3.15 in Sy.No.671 lA, Ac.l.28 gts., in Sy.No.671l8, Ac.1.20 gts, in Sy No 671l8, Ac.O. l5 Uts., in 51'No.67ll8, Ac.2.0O gts., in Sy.No.671lC, Ac 1'19 gts, in Sy.No.672lA & B, Ac.O.11 gts., in Sy.No.67O, Ac-2.39 gts, in SyNo'672, Ac.3.31 gts., in Sy.No.67O/A anci Ac.2.00 gts., in Sy No'670, situated at .Jangaon Vrllagc, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District, having acquired thc same through succession from their father. It is further stated that some third pgrll:s created fabricated sale deeds and basing on the same, 2 CVBR, J Vt.1'.No.143O5 of 2025 .f constructed s r'-l t.urcs u.ithout Municipal pcrmissions ,rrrj ocoupied part of the lands of t'rr letitroner, therefore , the petitioner anc hts family members have institrr-,-' 1 - rl.O.P.No.560 of 2008 on the file of thrr 'l'r bunal (Under Ap Land Grabbinq Frohibition Act) cum-District Judge, Karim ragar, to declare them as ovn e -s aitcl posscssors ol the petition scl- cc u lc properties by evicting thr: r.:;; r,nclr:nts theretn bt, demolishing :itrurLLtrrs raised in the schedule lard::rc strbsequently, the same was trarsferrerl t.o the Additional District Jud3e . ( i cclar.arikhani and rc numbered as I-.Ci O.P No. 177 of 2012. It is furthcr sr ir -r:d that thc Additional Districl -,r-rdge, r,lde orclcr datecl 13.11.2021 ir .. \.No.76 of 2024 in L.G.O.P.No.t77 o' UO 12, directcd the authorities I o r r: i r thc application filed b1, the pr:tit;oncr s lherein to the Mandal Rcr,:r I t: .)l'ficer, Ramagundam, with a dir-cc:t.io. ,o conduct local inspection o ' , r t-ll c.ilion or both by using latesl tcchno ogr. ar zllable ancl to submit its rcp.r t "'ithrn two weeks from the date of rccciot o'thc appiication. It is lurther r;'.rrrcrl rhat rcspondent No.4, withouL corrrluc linpr local inspection and digital su 'r r: , r,irie letter No.B/52l2O25, datcd 1:'.Oat..t02S stated that the subject l:r r is co,.,cred by rcsidential houses, comn'ler,-ri rl buildings, etc, but not merr]tiorL:l the ownership dctails and the natr-n,,' of rlcquisition. The grievance of tt,c P,rtitioner is that in spite of the specific ,1i:ection from the trial Court. r.-,.,p rnrlt:nt No.4 has not concluclr:d oca inspection or verification Lr u sitrg latest technology and submittr:cl rcp()rt ancl in view of not impleme rl lrrc r hc orders of the trial court, thc tr:rl c rurt is not in a position to dislrlr: oi the same. 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.143OS of 2025 lt is seen from the record thal- seeking implementation of the order 4. dated 13.1 1.2lJ24 passed in I A No 76 ot 2024 in L'G'O P'No '177 of 2012' the petitioner has filed this writ petition, wherein' it is directed to refer the application Liled by thc petitioners therein to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer' Ramagundam, to concluct local inspection or verification or both by using latest technologr available and to submit its report within two weeks from the clate of receipt of the application However' if the order of the trial Court is not implcmented, Lhc petitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing an appropriatc application before thc trial court and if the same is not considered, Lhe remedy is provicled to the petilioncr under ArL\cle 227 of Lhe Constitulion ol India and instead of fi1ing the same' the petitioner has filed the prese nt writ Petltlon

5. Accorclingly, since the petittoner remeclies as stated abovc, lhe present Writ Petition is dismissed' There shall having alternative efficacious 1S be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any' shall stand closed' SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO A SISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER One CC to SRI G.SUNDARESAN, Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 M BSR/BSK HIGH COI.'RT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.1430li of 2025 ,..//. IJc -) ,) 'i <,, Z:'i , ,..t4 tHe S14 l(. 6 I I ,lutl 2925 . )-- '..:i. . l. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUTCTOSTS (,l b t1