The High Court · 2025

Petition under puricre 226 of the constrtution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or direction one or more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarrng the in action of Tahsildhar /Respondent No.4 in not considering the Petitioners apprication dated 6-01.2020 for conducting a survey of property and fixing up the boundaries and metes thereat, belonging to petitioner in survey No. 102712/1, admeasuring Ac. 0--r0 Gts., dry rand crassified code No.1, situated at Musthabad Proper and tr,4andar, Gp r\Iusthbad, sub- District Rajanna sircilla, Karimnagar District, respectively as illegal, arbftrcry, u N-con stitutiona I and contrary to the provisions of Ap Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and I consequential direct the Official Respondents to forth with co duct a survey of the property and fix up the boundaries and metes thereat, b€ I rngrng to petitioner, Survey No. 10271211, admeasuring Ac. 0-10 Gts., dry -land ( lassified code No.1, situated at Musthabad Proper and lr/andal, GP Musthbad, S rb- District Rajanna Sircilla, Karimnagar District. l.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Petition Under Section 1 51 CPC prayrng that in the cr ( the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the Off icial Respondents to forth with conduct a surv€ ) fix up the boundaries and metes thereat, belonging to p: 10271211, admeasuring Ac. 0-10 Gts., dry land classified cr Ivlusthabad Proper and l\,4andal, GP lvlusthbad, Sub Dislr Kanmnagar District. Jmstances stated in may be pleased to of the property and itioner, Survey No. le No 1, srtuated at :t Rajanna Sircilla, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.ANNAPURNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUI: Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI L.PREETHAM REDt) , counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI T.SURyA SATISH W.P.NO:20012OF 2021 Between Suthari Varalaxmi, Musthabad Village State. AND Wo.lr/allesham, Aged 36 yrs Occ Hr,t sehold R/o 8-79i1 and [\,4andai Ra.lanna Sircilla; Karimnag:u District Telangana ..-..PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Princrple Secretary l Department, Secretariat Hyderabad, T.S. 2 The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District. 4 The Tahsild har/tvlandal Revenue Officer, [Vustabad, [r/usti Rajanna Sircilla District.

5. Annam Venkat Rajireddy, Sio Malla Reddy Aged 69 years R/o Mustabad proper and Mandal Rajanna Sircilla Dtstr ct 6. Kurma @ Kane Yellavva, W/o tr/aisaiah Aged lVajor, Occ IVustabad Village and Ir.4andal Rajanna Srrcilla District. lvenue bad Mandal Occ Agriculture lousehold R/o .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or direction one or more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of Tahsildhar /Respondent No.4 tn not consrdering the Petittoners applicatron daled 1510712020 for conducting a survey of property and fixing up the boundaries and metes thereat, belonging to Petitioner in Survey No. 1027121112, admeasuring Ac. 0-10 Gts., dry land classified code No.1 , situated at Nlusthabad Proper and Mandal, GP lvlusthbad, Sub- District Rajanna Sircilla, Karrmnagar District, respectively as illegal, arbitrary, un- constitutional and contrary to the provisions of AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and consequential direct the Official Respondents to forth with conduct a survey of the property and frx up the boundaries and metes thereat, belonging to Petitioner, Sy No. 1027121112, admeasuring Ac.0-10 Gts.,dry land classified code No.1, srtuated at Nlusthabad Proper and Mandal, GP lr/usthbad, Sub- District Rajanna Sircilla, Karimnagar Distnct- |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 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 Official Respondents to forth with conduct a survey of the property and fix up the boundaries and metes thereat, belonging to Petitioner, Sy No_ 1027121112, admeasuring Ac. 0-10 Gts., dry land classified code No.1, situated at Musthabad Proper and Mandal, GP lvlusthabad, Sub- District Rajanna Sircilla, Karimnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.ANNAPURNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI L.PREETHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI T.SURYA SATISH The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. i/ENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos. t9972 and 2'l ro12 0F 202L COMMON ORDER: respondent/Tahsildar Writ Petition No.l99Z2 of 2O2l has ber: r filed seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the inactic n of the 4th ln not considering r [e petitioner,s application dated 15.07 .2O2O for conductin6 a survey ard fixing boundaries of the petitioner,s lan : admeasuring Ac...1O guntas of dry land, classified unde,- Code No.1, in Survey No.|O2Z /2/1, situated at Musthai ad proper & Mandal, Grampanchayat Musthabad, Sub_lli ;trict Rajanna Sircilla, Karimnagar District (hereinafter refr:. red to as the subject propertgl as ilregal, arbitrary, and cc ntrary to the provisions of the A.p. Survey and Boundaries I ct, 1923; and consequentl.y, to direct the official responden t r to forthwith conduct a survey of the subject propert-\. ald flx its boun daries. 2 Writ Petition No.20Oi2 of 2021 is filed se: <ing a utit of the 4th inaction o. mandamus, declaring the responden t/ Tahsildar in not considering th: petitioner,s !!Fg757.-.*=-,a I ..]\i\ Page 2 of9 application dated i5.07 .2O2O for conducting a survey and fixing the boundaries of the petitioner's lald-measuring Ac.O.1O guntas of dry land, classified under Code No.1, in Survey No.lO27/211/2, situated at Musthabad Proper & Mandal, Grampanchayat Musthabad, Sub-District Rajalna Sircilla, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred to as the subject propertg)-as il1egal, arbitrary, and contrar5r to the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, \923; and consequently, to direct the official respondents to forthwith conduct a survey of the subject property and hx its boundaries.

3. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one ald the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order

4. Heard Smt.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue and L.Preetham Reddy, l Page 3 of9 learned counsel for the 5th respondent an: Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the 6th respondr:r rt.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners I ubmits that the petitioners are the absolute owners arr, I possessors of the subject property, having purchased tf e sarne from their father, late Bandi Chandraiah, throul h registered sale deeds bearing Registration Nos. 1175€ of 2018 and 17759 of 2018, for valid consideration. Sin,:: the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful pos session and enjoyment of the said property.

6. During his lifetime, the said Bandi Chandraiah made representations to the 4th responder:1, requesting a sulvey and hxation of boundaries, purl uant to an enquiry, the 4th respondent issued proce3lings dated

05.03.2013, deleting the name of the 6th r,:;pondent in respect of the subject property and confinin 3 her rights to an extent of Acs.3.03 guntas in Survel No.lO27 /2. Subsequently, the 4t1n respondent also issued an endorsement dated 30.03.2019, stating tf at the 6th Page 4 of9 !- \ respondent had suppressed the aforesaid proceedings \ dated 05.03.2OL3.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed W.P. No.12426 of 2OI9 before this Honble Court, seeking consideration of her representation. Thereafter, upon conducting a detailed enquiry, the Tahsildar, Mustabad, rectified the erroneous entries in respect of the subject property and, vide Proceedings No.B/113- 03/2OI2 dated 05.03.2013, entered the name of Bardi Chandraiah. Further, Pattadar Passbook No.151982, with Khata No.46, was issued in his nzune, ald his nzune was recorded in the revenue records as pattadar for the year 1993-94.

8. Despite several representations made by the petitioners' father, along with the requisite fees,

12.O2.2O 13, 12.O9.2O 15, 73. 12.2017, and 12.O2.2O 18, the official respondbnts, though having received and acknowledged the same, have failed to conduct a survey and frx the boundaries of the subject property !\ Paee 5 of9 Additionally, the petitioners' mother alsc submitted a representation to the 4ft respondent orr 26.02.20t8, requesting a slrrvey and fixation of bounrl ries, but no action has been taken in this regard to dat,:

9. On the other hand, the learn:1 Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, submits that the subject property is a rrivate land; therefore, hxation of boundaries does r.ot arise in respect of private non-agricultural land. He further submits that a survey was conduc::d on two occasions-first on 28.06.2018, in which he father of the petitioners was a signatory, olrl again on

06.07.2O2O, rvherein the mother of the pr,r itioners was also a signatory. In view of the same, he see ks dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the Sth respor dent, while reiterating the averments made in the cou.,l ler affidavit, submits that there were no boundary dispr- tes between the petitioners' father, late Chandraiah. rnd the 5th Page 6 of9 respondent. However, the petitioners a-re now making false claims over the property belonging to the 5ft respondent. Consequently, the 5th respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners, as well as against Bandi Lakshmi and Sankinala Shravanthi, in O.S. No.309 of 2O2O, and obtained a status quo order in I.A. No.303 of 2O2O, on the lile of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. The said suit is still pending. 1 1. He further submits that, even according to the boundaries mentioned in the petitioners'sale deeds, the Sth respondent's land in Survey No.1028 is not abutting the subject property. A clear stone wall edsts between Survey Nos.1027 and LO28, which has been in existence for a long time. In view of the same, he seeks dismissa_l of the writ petition.

12. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent, while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 5e respondent, submits that civil disputes are pending between the petitioners and the Page 8 of9 passed by the Honble Division Bench of t:is Court in W.A. No.61B of 2012, for conducting a surve .and fixing \t \ boundaries, within a period of four weeks frcr e today i5. Upon receipt of such application, thr: competent authority is directed to issue notices to the oetitioners, unofficial respondents, and all other concerr ed parties, conduct a detailed enquiry based on the documents produced by the parties, and pass appropl iate orders strictly in accordance with law, AS expe,i itiously AS possible

16. With the above direction, both these Wr it petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order ir; to costs Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed sq/-r A6S iI JAWAHAR REDDY I iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I\ l. SECTION OFFICER To SA BS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o I S cretarii t State of Telangana The Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmen at Hyderabad, T.S. The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District The Tahsild har/l\,4andal Revenue Officer, ft,4ustabad, Ii,4u; :bad N4andal Rajanna Sircilla District. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Sta r of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI K ANNAPURNA REDDY, Advocate [OP- 3] One CC to SRI T.SURYA SATISH, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to SRI L PREETHAM REDDY, Advoiate (OPU I , Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:19 tOgt2O2S COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.19972 AND 20012 0F 2021 ..\ i\. l{ i:: 20fr ( ,/,, /: tt:l l! ,i i'i ,\, DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. up1