Veeramachaneni Narasimha Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

4. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Kandala Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late K.Rami Reddy, Aged aboutTl years, Occ Business, F/o. Upparluda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Kandala Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late K.Rami Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Uppaiguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Kandala Yadi Reddy, S/o. Late K.Bal Reddy, Aged about. 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Upparguda Village, Abdullapurmet lt/landal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Kandala Rami Reddy, S/o. K.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about. 4-0 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Uppbrguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 'l0.Kandala Janga Reddy, S/o. K.Narsimha Reddy, Aged.about. {5 years, Occ. Business, R/=o. Uppdrguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS :WZ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thb circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to issue a writ or more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order declaring the action of Respondents Nos.2 to 5 in issuing notice to the petitioner in file No.J/40012025, d1.2s.03.2025 exhibiting the survey date as 11.04.2025 and again issuing same notice vide file No.J/400/2025, d1.25.O3.2O25 exhibiting the survey date as 28.04.2025 in respect of land in sy.no.91 of Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R.R.District even after intimating the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 about the injunction order in L4.No.15212025 in o.s.No.175 of 2025 on the fite of lV Addt. Senior civil Judge, R.R.District in respect of land adm.Ac.1.05 gts in sy.No.88 of Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R.R.District against the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 through representations d1.09.04.2025 giving notice by Respondent No.4 and 5 is illegal, arbitrary against to the principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to stop the survey proceedings in file No.J/40 ol2o25, d|.25.O3.2025 in respect of petitioner land adm.Ac.1.05 gts in sy.no.88 of Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in view of the lnjunction order in 1.A.No.15212025 in o.s.No.175 of 202s on the file of lV Addl. senior Civit Judge, R.R.District. 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 direct the stay of all further proceedings on survey of petitioner's Iand adm.Ac.1.05 gts in sy.no.88 of Koheda village by Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in file No.Jl40012025, dt.25.O3.2025 exhibiting the survey date as 28.O4.2025 in respect of Sy.No.9'1 of Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet tMandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13399 of 2o24 ORDER: lt is stated that the petitioner is the original owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.05 guntas, out of Acs.2.O4 guntas in Sy.No.88 situated at Koheda Village and Gram Panchayat, Abduliapurmet Mandal, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing document No.2373 of 2OO4, dated 15.03.2004. It is further stated that he gifted the subject property to his daughter, namely, V.Veena under the gift settlement deed bearing document No.9813 of 2OO7, dated

18.08.2007. It is case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.6 to 1O interfered with the peaceful possession and caused obstruction to the enjoyment of the property, the petitioner was constrained to frle O.S.No.175 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated the unofflcial respondents instead of hlirig appropriate application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the said suit for conducting survey with the help of Surveyor, have fiied art application before respondent No.4-Tahsildhar seeking to conduct 2 survey in Sy.No.91 of Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that respondent No.4 has issued notrce uide file No.J/4OO/2025, dated 25.O3.2025 to the petitioner fixing the date of survey as 28.04.2025 in respect of land in Sy.No.91. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the guise of conducting survey in Sy.No.91, the unoffrcial respondents, who are the adjacent owners, are making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land in Sy.No.SS.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents is dispensed with.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he instituted a suit for injunction in respect of the subject lald in Sy.No.gg of Koheda Village, Abclullapurmet Mandal. It is further case of the petitioner that the trial Court has granted ad-interim injunction and the same is in force as on date. The impugned notice uide file No.J /4OO/2O25, dated 25.O3.2025 was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar for conducting survey of the lands in Sy.No.91. The property mentioned in the impugned notice and the suit schedule property are different and distinct and the petitioner being the I I I I -wry- .4",/ 3 adjacent pattadar, a survey was noticed to him. No fault can be found with regard to the procedure adopted by the Tahsildar. If the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the impugned notice, he is entitled to make appropriate application/objections on the file of respondent No.4. In the event of Iiling of application/ objections by the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall consider the said objections before conducting survey in terms of the impugned notice uide file No.J/400/2025, d,ated 25.O3.2025.

4. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs 5 As a 6equel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SDL K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISThAR / {/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary' Revenue Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District' 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division' Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' 6. One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

8. Two CD CoPies BSR HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.13399 of 2025 ( o3 THE g t4 o a 10 IUN lW P, \ I sr'AIc' I l, l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \ )...-" w /.t