The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass writ, order or direction more particurarry in nature of wRrr oF IVIANDAMUS decraring the impugned memo being Dt 1ro4r2o2o dared 18ro2r2o2o refusing to conduct survey as arbitrary and ilegar and in gross vioration of the l l . :l z principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Il rspondent to conduct survey of the land in Sy no 229 situated at Kandenelly Vilku e, peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m; y be pleased pending disposal of the main writ petition the respondents no 2 to , be directed to issue notices to all the pattedars for conducting survey of the lan,l in Sy no 229 situated at Kandenelly Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District lnd pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI YOGESH KUMAR HEROOII Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVET\l rE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s to 8:---- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.15Oa7 of 2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer *to pass writ order or direction more partianlarlu in nature of Wit of Mandamus declarinq the impuqned memo beinq D/ 1704/2020 dated 18/02/2O2O refusinq to conduct suruell as arbitrary and illeqal and in qross uiolation of the pinciples of natural .iustice and consequenth.l direct the Respondent to conduct surueu of the land in Surueu No.229 sifitated at Kandenellg Village Peddemul Mandal Vikarabad'

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned memo bearing No.D/fiOa12020 issued by respondent No.3 in respect of Survey No.229, wherein the petitioner filed an application for fixation of boundaries, carne to be rejected assigning the following reasons: i. As per records, the petitioner is not having total extent of land. ii, The petitioner does not possess T PAN of the said survey number. iii. Objections were raised by farmer in the said survey number. iv. The name of the petitioner is not reflected in ttre revenue records. v. The names of the other pattadars in the said survey number are not mentioned in the petitioner's claim. 2 vi. A Court case is pending in respect of the said survey mrmber.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urther submit that the petitioner is the pattadar and possessor of the subject land and is holding arl old pattadar passbook. \.[ i ,hout affording arly opportunity to the petitioner to explain t is case or to conduct the survey after calling for objections, th: respondent - Tahsildar issued the impugned memo wit r the above observations. He submits that the petitioner has every right to establish that he is the lawful title holder of the r nd situated in Survey No.229 of Kandanelli Village. It is further :ontended that no Court case is pending with respect to the said s urvey number, and in fact, the respondent No.4 had already issu:d proceedings bearing No.Al 1586/2002, dated 06.07.2002 r, cognizing the petitioner's peacefui possession over the propert) and directing the necessa4r mutation of entries. Hence, it ir; prayed to set aside the impugned memo and pass appropriate or lers

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Il rvenue, on the other hand, submits that upon verification o the revenue records, it is found that the petitioner does not I .old the entire extent of land claimed by them ald that his name s not recorded in the revenue records. He further submits that si. rce a civil case 1S pending, the official respondents are r<: trained from t t 3 conducting the survey pursuant to the petitioner,j application, I I and hence prays for appropriate orders.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the impugned memo No.D/ fiOa /2O2O, dated 1,8.O2.2O2O issued by respondent No.3, wherein reasons have been cited for not conducting the survey, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 afresh by frling an appropriate application duly curing the objections pointed out in the impugned memo, with necessarJr explanation and supporting documents. Upon such filing, if the explanation is found satisfactory, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same, by issuing notice to all concerned parties, and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

6. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the consent, no notice is being issued to the unof{icial respondents, and it is left open to respondent No.3 to put them on notice ard a-fford an opportunity of hearing if the cause surytves. No order as to costs. 4 As a. sequel thereto, miscellaneous applt< ations, if any, pending, shall stand closed. SDi. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS{i S NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER \\F \ To, //TRUE COPY// 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, The Sta.r Qf Telangana, Hyderabad

2. Assistanl Director Survey, and land records Vikarabad t istrict Vikarabad 3. TaShildar, Peddemul Mandal Vikarabad District 4. IVlandal Surveyor, Peddemul Mandal Vikarabad Districl 5. One CC to Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, Advocate IOPL ( | 6- Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State c 'Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. fwo CD Copies TJ GJP |,rMT I t HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 ORDER WP.No.15087 of 2020 .[ri: Si.li 2 7 ,AN 2026 ''-Z C) .A L,, () \ t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS MM-I_ ,3 l& es