The High Court · 2025

13. Ms Chittala Akhila, D/o Chittala Venkara Ramana Reddy Aged about 34 years, Occ Private Employee PJo H.No. 5-206, Road No. 14, Deepthi Srinagar, Opp Madinaguda, Miyapur, Telangana 500049. Rep by AGPA holders M/s Sri Surya Developers, Rep by its Authrrr Surendranath, aged about 46 years, Having a registeftx Royal Villas, Panchavati Colony, Manikonda, Gandipet sed Signatory Mr K. office at PIot No. 1 1, elangana.

14.Smt. Sita Mahalakshmi ft4ekala, W/o Ramana Reddy, Occ Private Employee RJo 302, Jubilee hill Country, Hills, Hyderabad 33 Rep by AGPA holders M/s Sri Sury its Authorised Signatory Mr K- Surendranath, aged ab ) registered office at Plot No. 'l 1 , Royal Villas, Panchav I Gandipet, Telangana. ged about 51 years, load No. 1"1 , Jubilee r Developers, Rep by t46 years, Having a Colony, Manikonda, "Respondents Nos.13 and 14 are impleaded as Per :.O. dt.06.10.2025 in lA. No.2l2O25 l5.Anthmeeya Agrotech Private Limited, A compan / Companies Act, 2013, Regd- Office. C/o, Konaseema Ravulapadu Village, Ravuapalem Mandal, Guntur D s Pradesh, Rep by its lvlanaging Director Mr. IVlethena \ Raju incorporated under etrofill, D.No. 3-1 23, rict 533238, Andhra -.nkata Surya Subba

16.M/s. lVlaatha Transport lvlachinery, Rep, by its lVe Vppalapati Praveen S/o, U. Krishna tvlurthy RAju, Rl/c, Beach Villas, Pedda Rishikonda, Vishakhapatnam (Ft District, Andhra Pradesh. raging Partner, Mr. Villa No.1 0, Pebbala ral), Vishakapatnam *Respondents Nos.15 and 16 are impleaded as Per ( .O. dt.13.11.2025 in tA. No. 5/2025 ' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd z circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularll Writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings issued by 1 vide 431156712022, dl. 29-12-2022 and the consequert D211712023, dt. 05-01-2023 issued by the respondent No tl lands being shown rn the name of Respondents 8 to 12, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lrrr of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set-aside ttrr ...RESPONDENTS praying that in the ligh Court may be rne in the nature of e Respondent No 2 rl proceedings No :o the extent of the is illegal, arbitrary, ia, besides violative 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 suspend the proceedings issued by the Respondent No 2 vide 4Y15A712022, dt. 29-12-2022 and the consequential proceedings No D2117/2023, dt. 05-01-2023 issued by the respondent No 2 to tne extent of the lands being shown in the name of respondents 8 to '12, pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between:

1. I\,4s Chittala Akhila, D/o Chittala Venkara Ramana Reddy Aged about 34 years, Occ Private Employee R/o H.No. 5-206, Road No. 14, Deepthi Srinagar, Opp fr/adinaguda, lvliyapur, Telangana 500049. Rep by AGPA holders l\.4/s Sri Surya Developers, Rep by its Authorised Signatory lVlr K. Surendranath, aged about 46 years, Having a registered office at Plot No. 11, Royal Villas, Panchavati Colony, Manikonda, Gandipet, Telangana.

2. Smt. Sita l\,4ahalakshmi Mekala, W/o Ramana Reddy Aged about 51 years, Occ Private Employee R/o 302, Jubilee hill Country, Road No. 1 1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 33 Rep by AGPA holders [t4is Sri Surya Developers, Rep by its Authorised Signatory Mr K. Surendranath, aged about 46 years, Having a registered office at Plot No. 11, Royal Vtllas, Panchavati Colony, Manikonda, Gandipet, Telangana. ...lmplead Petitioners/Proposed Respondent Nos. 13 &14 AND 1 Yarrapothu Sailaja, Wo. Yarrapothu Koti Babu, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o D.No.20, Road No.16, Near Sai Baba Tempe, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 500033. ....RespondenUWrit Petitioner 2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Diskict Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division at Chevella. 5. The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. 7. Krishna Ram Bhupal, S/o Late Sri S. Bhupal, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o 6-3-250, Road No 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

8. Shallini Bhupal, Wo Late Sri S.Bhupal, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o 6-3-250, Road No 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 034.

9. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged major, R/o Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10. M.Eshwar Reddy, S/o Not known to the Petitioner, Agt:r Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 11.K. Bhupal, S/o. K.Shankaraiah, Aged about major. : Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. major, R/o Kondakal o. Kondakal Village,

12. D. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitio I Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy t r, Aged major, PJo istrict. 13 K. Rammohan Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitrc: Kondakal Vi lage, Ryo. Kondakal Village, Shankerpally I District. ;r, Aged. l\ilajor, Rl/o andal, Ranga Reddy .... ResPonrl nts/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci" umstances stated in the aff idavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou'i may be pleased to vacate the ad-interim ex-parte order dated 22.O4.2025 mad; n LA. No. '1 of 2025 in W.P No 11917 ol 2025 lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: K- Bhupal, S/o. K.Shankaraiah, Aged about major, Il c. Kondakal Village, Sharkerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...,.Vacate Petitioners/l rspondent No. 10 AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yarrapothu Sailaja, W/o. Yarrapothu Koti Babu, Aged Advocate, R/o D.No.20, Road No.16, Near Sai Babir Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 500033. bout 58 years, Occ. Iempe, Film Nagar, The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principat Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. ....Respor r enUWrit Petitioner ;ecretary, Revenue The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division at Clrr vella. The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Shankarpally, Rarrr a Reddy District. The Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Rang r Reddy District. Krishna Ram Bhupal, S/o Late Sri S. Bhupal, Aged a Business, R/o 6-3-250, Road No 1 , Banjata Hills, Hyderz )out 40 years, Occ. rad - 500 034.

8. Shallini Bhupal, W/o Late Sri S.Bhupal, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o 6-3-250, Road No 1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-soo 034.

9. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged major, R/o Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10. fi/.Eshwar Reddy, S/o Not known to the Petitioner, Aged ma.1or, Rl,/o Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

11. D. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Aged major, Rio Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

12.K. Rammohan Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Aged. Major, fuo Kondakal Village, R/o. Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ....Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition No.11917 of 2025 by vacating the interim order dated

22.04.2025 passed in l.A. No. '1 of 2025 lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Between:

1. Anthmeeya Agrotech Private Limited, A company incorporated under Companies Act,2013, Regd. Office. C/o, Konaseema Petrofill, D.No.3-123, Ravulapadu Village, Ravuapalem Mandal, Guntur District 533238, Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Managing Director Mr. Methena Venkata Surya Subba Raju.

2. M/s. Maatha Transport Machinery, Rep, by its Managing Partner, Mr. Uppalapati Praveen S/o, U. Krishna Murthy RAju, Rl/o, Villa No.1 0, Pebbala Beach Villas, Pedda Rishikonda, Vishakhapatnam (Rural), Vishakapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. .....Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 15 & 16 AND 1 Yarrapothu Sailaja, Wo. Yarrapothu Koti Babu, Advocate, R/o D.No.20, Road No.16, Near Sai Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 500033. Aged about 58 years, Occ. Baba Tempe, Film Nagar,

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....RespondenUPetitioner its Principal Secretary, Revenue

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Diviision at C r 5. The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Shankarpally, Ra I 6. The Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Ran<;r 7. Krishna Ram Bhupal, S/o Late Sri S. Bhupal, Aoed t Business, RJo 6-3-250, Road No 1, Banjara Hitts. U"yO e , I Shallini Q!upql, W/o Late Sri S.Bhupat, Aged about 60 r R/o 6-3-250, Road No '1, Banjara H jits, Hy"derabad-soo ( 9. q. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not known to the petitione Kondakal Village, Shankerpa y Mandal, Ranga Reddy ) 10. M.Eshwar Reddy. S/o Not known to the petitioner. Aoe j Village, Shankerparly IVlandal, Ranga Reddy District. " 11.K. Bhupal, S/o. K.Shankaraiah, Aqed about maior. F! Shankerpatty t\,4andat, Ranga Reddi District. vella. a Reddy District. Reddy District. rout 40 years, Occ. rad - 500 034. :ars, Occ. Business, J1. , Aged major, R/o strict. xajor, R/o Kondakal r. Kondakal Village,

12. D. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. not known to the oetition: Kondakal Village. Shankerpally lvlandal. Ranga Reddy I) 13. K. Rammohan Reddy, S/0. not known to the oetitior r {ondakal Village. R/o. Kondakal Vi age. Shankerpalty t4 District. Aged major, Rt/o ;trict. ', Aged. Major, RJo rndal, Ranga Reddy

14. Ms Chittala Akhila, D/o Chittala Venkara Ramana R: years. Occ Private Employee Rtio H.No. 5_206, R( i Srinagar, Opp Ir,4adinaguda, Miyapur, Telanoana 50(.( holders M/s Sri Surya Developers. Rep by ils Author I Surendranath, aged about 46 y'ears, Havinoa reqistererl Royal Villas, Panchavati Coloriy, trzlanikond;, ca;diGt, T 15. Smt. Sita Mahalakshmi Mekala, W/o Ramana Reddv I Occ Private Emptoyee Fyo 302, Jubilee hilt Counini_ i Hills, Hyderabad 33 Rep by AGpA holders M/s Sri Siiv its Authorise_d signatory Mi K. Surendranath, aqed ab6 registered office at plot No. 11, Royal Villas, palnchavat Gandipet, Telangana. ldy Aged about 34 J No. 14, Deepthi 49. Rep by AGPA -'d Signatory Mr K. rffice at Plot No. 11, ;langana. v ed about 51 years, I ad No. 11. Jubilee r )evelopers, Rep by r 46 vears. Havino a i )olony, Manikonda, ....Responde r ts/Respondents Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circL rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rray be preased to modify the order dated 22.04.202s either by rimiting t e suspension of proceedings daled 29122022 and os.o1 .2023 only to an ext, nt of lands shown in the name of Respondents No.8 to 12 or by particularly re:;1 icting the lands in sub-division survey numbers against which the names of ResD ndents No.g to 12 are shown. in the Proceedings dated 29.12.2022 and 05.01.2(1 l, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent No. 10 : SRI T. SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 13 & 14 : SRI M. SRIKANTH Counsel for the Proposed Respondent Nos. 15 & 16: SRI ROHIT POGULA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENII iOPAL WRIT PETITION No.11917 of 2O2'> ORDER: This Writ Petition, filed under Articlt: )26 of the Constitution of lndia, seeks the following relief "...to issue a Writ, order or direction, mor: one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. c proceedings issued by Respondent A3l 1567 12022 dated 29.12.2022, consequential proceedings D2l17 /2( O5.O1.2023, insofar as they show the pel,i, in the names of Respondent Nos.S to '1 arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 2l ancl Constitution of India, ald contrary to the natural justice, and consequently set asr( and pass such other orders as this Hon'bl deem fit ald proper." - particularly eclaring the No.2 'ride ).3 dzrted rner's lands , as illegal, '00 A of the rrinciples of e the same ' Court may

2. Heard Sri M. Arun Kumar. learnerl counsel for the petitioner, Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistal lovernment Pleader for Revenue for respondent N: .;- 1 to 5, Sri P.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for th,r respondent Nos.6 and 7, Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent No- 10, Sri M.Srikanth, lear-tr d counsel appearing for respondent Nos.13 and 14 and lezr ned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 15 ald 16. Th: record has been perused. i I i I I i I Page 2 of l0

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner arld possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2.14 guntas, comprising Ac- 1.03 guntas in Sy.No.398 lA, Ac.O.27 guntas in Sy.No.4OOlA, AcO'O6 guntas in Sy.No.4O2/A and Ac.O.1B guntas in Sy.No.402lA1l 1, situated at Kondakal Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner purchased the said lald under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1887/2008 dated 03.04.2008. Her name was duly mutated in the revenue records and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued. She has been in peaceful possession since the date of purchase.

4. It is alleged that respondent No.6, al adjoining laldowner, unlawfully encroached upon Acs.2O.12 guntas of Government land as '*'e11 as portions of private patta lands and constructed a compound wall, thereby obstructing the petitioner's ingress and egress. On the petitioner's request, a survey was conducted by the Deputy Inspector, Chevella Division. The Deputy Director reported that respondent No'6 had encroached upon the said extent of Government 14nd' q-- Pagc 3 ol l0 5- Respondent No.6 also threatened I) ivate patta holders, rncludrng the petrtioner, compelling , it:m to sell their lands at throwar.r,ay prices. The pet i ioner filed O.S.No.55 of 2009 before the learned Senior ,livil Judge, Vikarabad, for injunction. Eariier, respondent No.7 fi1ed O.S.No.87 of 2OO7 seeking perpetual injunctior, rvhich was dismissed on 28.08.2O14. The appeal A.S.No.49 ,f 2O14 u'as also dismissed on 04.O4.20 19. In vrew of the disr Lissal of tl-re said suit and appeal, the petitioner u,ithdrew S.No.55 of 2009

6. Since no action was taken by l.re ofhcial respondents regarding the encroachments, tlr petitioner filed W.P.No.1O863 of 2014. Respondent | , .4 filed a counter affidavit therein. This Court, by : -der dated 04 .O3 .2024 , directed respondent No.5 to c : nplete the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of thr: A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 19O5 and pass orders in acc-''dance r,r'ith law. Though the petitioner communicated t: : order to respondent No.4 on O5.O3.2O24, no steps \{.'ere t il<en. While contemplating contempt proceedings, the peti rner learnt Page 4 of l0 that respondent No.2 had issued proceedings A3 /1567 12022 dated 29. 12.2022 under Sections 87 and 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Lald Revenue Act, 1 3 17 Fasli, purporting to correct village boundaries of Kondakal and Mokhila villages and allotting new Survey No.555 to al extent of Acs.148.03 guntas, u'hich included the petitioner's land and reflected portions of it in the names of respondents 8 to 12'

7. The petitioner relies on the order dated O4.OB.2O2| passed by this Court in W.P(PIL).No 198 of 2O2O, wherein this Court directed a-11 District Collectors to conduct exhaustive surveys, maintain registers of Government lald vvith geo-mapped records, furnish details to the Sub-Regrstrar and ensure that no private sale deeds of Government land are registered. B. It is stated that the villagers of Kondakal submitted a calcellation of illegal transactions and issuance of representation in "Ptajavanl" seeking passbooks to eligible persons in respect of Sy'No'555' They were advised to apply through TM-33 Module on the Dharani Portal. However, the impugned proceedings now record the entire assigned extent in the narnes of priva;,c: individuals without proper verification of title or documertt: relating to respondent Nos.6 to i 2. The petitioner alleg r s that the unolficial respondents are now attempting to irr.erfere il.ith her patta land and similariy situated lands I . The learned Assistant Governmen t Pleader for Revenue, reiterating the contents made in 1te counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2l t r '1 submrts that the impugned proceedings dated 29. l. .'2022 and

05.01.2023, assigning Sy.No.555 to the "Biladh: <1a" land of Kondakal Village, u'ere issued strictly in accordar ce with the survey reports ald statutory procedure under iections 87 and 9O of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 13l Fasli. It is asserted that revenue records historicallv rr't ected onh, Sy.Nos.1 554, and Sy.No.555 were assigned al-t e ' a detailed survey initiated on the representation of loc.r residents, identilying Ac. 148.03 gts of Biladhakia la-l .l and its enjoyment. The petitioner's land in Sy.Nos.398 and 402 is unreiated to Sy.No.555 and her vendor held 1t1e to only Ac.0.33 gts., already reflected in the records. )roceedings Page 6 of l0 under the Land Encroachment Act pursuant to W'P' No.10863 of 2OI4 are ongoing, arrd all Government ialds, including Biladhakla lands, have been survel'ed and notified under Sectior. 22-A of the Registration Act. As the petitioner has no locus and her rights are not affected by the impugned proceedings, the respondents contend that the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

10. Har.ing considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side ald having perused the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' The principal grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned proceedings dated 29.12.2022 arrd the consequential proceedings dated 05.01.2023, issued under Sections 87 and 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Lald Revenue Act, l3l7 Fasli, her patta land situated in Sy.Nos.398/A, 4OOlA, 4O2lA atd 4O2lAlll has been erroneously shown in the names of respondent Nos'8 to 12' However, the stand of the revenue authorities, as reflected in i1 I I Page 7 of l0 the cor. nter affidavit, is categorical that the petit oner's lands fa1l entirell, r.vithin the old survey numbers, du ' reflected in thc revenue records and have no nexus w,hrr soer''er u'ith Sy.No.555 rrew1y assigned to the Biladhal la land of Kondakal Village i 1 . The materials produced by the :espondents indicate that the exercise was undertakerr strictly 1n accordance u,ith statutory procedure and surve'r records and that neither the petitioner's land nor her reco ded title or possession formed part of the said Biladhakla lar d

12. The petitioner has not placed aL_r substal1tive material to demonstrate that her specific extents in S1'.Nos.398, 4OO or 4O2 were included in Sy.Nr 555 or that her recorded title has been a-itered, almrlled, or Irsturbed by the impugned proceedings. A mere apprelr :nsion that unofficial respondents may interfere with het' patta land, without anlr documentar5r proof of such interference traceable to the impugned official action, canno - :onfer locus to challenge a village-boundary or surve t assignment exercise undertaken by the competent revenue zL rthority. Pase 8 of l0

13. It is well-settled law that a writ of mandamus lies only when a lega.lly enforceable right of the petitioner is infringed ald that declaratory or corrective relief relating to slrrvev proceedings cannot be granted in the absence of direct impact upon the petitioner's rights. The Honble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that unless petitioner establishes that the impugned survey action has resulted in mutation, deletion or alteration of her legally recorded land particulars, a challenge under Article 226 is not maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner continues to hold pattedar passbooks and title deeds in respect of her lands and none of these have been cancelled or.superseded by the impugned proceedings.

14. Further, the respondents have clarified that the petitioner's earlier grievance of encroachrhent by respondent No.6 is presently the subject-matter of independent proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 19O5, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1O863 of 2014. Those proceedings are ongoing ald are in no way impeded or diluted by the issuance of the i I I I i i i I l I I l t ! I I TI I t ; I l! I t)age 9 of l0 impugned survey related orders. The petitio rer cannot, therefore, employ the present v',rit petition a:r a collatera,l forum to ventilate issues i.r,hich are alr:ady being adjudicated under a scparate statutory process

15. This Court also notes that Sy. {o.555 \tlas created a-fter identification of un surveyed Bilzt [hakla land, historically not part of the original Sy.Nos.1-51 4 and such assrgnment ls squarely within the powers of the revenue authorities under Sections 87 ald 9O of the I li 7 Fasli Act. In the absence of any demonstrable violatic r of natural justice or anlr materia-l prejudice to the petition€ r, this Court finds no illega1ity, arbitrariness or constitutionrr infirmity in the impugned proceedings

1.6. The petitioner's reliance on the < irections in W. P. (PIL). No. 1 98 of 2O2O is misconceived. Tho 'e directions were issued to ensure protection of Governme rt land and proper maintenalice of survey ald geo-mappe(l records arrd they do not confer any personal right on the r :titioner nor invalidate survey exercises undertaken in acc r rdance ll,ith statute. I \ t ! Page l0 of l0 17 . In light of the above analysis, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to establish locus standi, rnfringement of aly legally protected right, or any procedural or substantive illegality in the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit.

18. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to entertain the Writ Petition

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed Sd/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to SRI M ARUN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI T. SURYA SATISH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI [tzl. SRIKANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana r u(Z 7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 ORDER WP.No.11917 of 2025 SIAIE c",:, '/:.jc' e 6 rEB ?02[ ,-) -x- I , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @%t*'