High Court · 2025

,^" ".::il:,.:lil"i3:"n-lu'' tn support of the petition, the High court ;ffir"ed the resp,ndents :*f i*:#:;,;#{,r;'.r,:::,T;J: jH:rH:;:::: Ma isa m m;, o,.;;:;ffi::l-;H; ;xffi;,; :r : ^,0,.p. rrv,ii," n., G a nd i rqr rvrqr^aJgtn District; pending disposar of the above writ petition. srated in to direct Counset f<rr the petitioner; SRI B. NALIN Counset for the Respondents No.1 to {:as!!-. RAVTNDER, . AGp roR Reyeruud Counset for the Respondent No.S: ll[s. A The Court nrade the following: ORDER THE IIOIi"BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking tl,.e following relief: iledadrlg tle '...to isisr.lr- a Writ of Mondamus or ang other apprcpriate urit or ord.er or direction in tl,e naturc of a impuqed notie bearing No.B/684/2O25, datd 10.07-2025 a.s beaq uitlaut arbitrarg and uiolatiw of Article 14 of tle Cottstthttion of hdia and prilrcipLes of nafiral justie and ansquentlg dired tle respondents rwt to ondud attg surveg pursucrrlt to the impugned notie in tle interest of justie and pass..." 2 Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel for the petitioner-ComPany and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.l to 4 and perused the record.

3. karned Senior Counsel appearing for ttre petitioner- Company would submit that the petitioner-Company has purchased the land to alr extent of Acs.37'0O guntas in Sy.No.62/1/A under various sale deeds registered it' !h' J , Pagc 2 of5 year 2OOO, 2OOl, 2OL4 and 2OlS. bince ttre date of purchase the petitioner-Company is in absolute possession and enjo5rment of the subject property. The Comp,any also constructed a compound wall on four sides of the land and has not encroached into any Land nor any claim made against the petitioner-Company. The petitioner_ Comp:rny also obtained permission of conversion of the propert5r from agricultural to non_agricultu rat land uid.e procee<lings bearing No.240O369g15, dated 22.O6.2024 and, 24OO48i2693, dated 31.02.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Gandi Maisamma Dundigal. At prbsent a solar plant is being operated from the above propert5r since the year 2O 16.

4. In response to the impugned notice dated 1O.07.2025, the petitioner-Company submitted a reply dated, LS.OZ.2O2S in the oflice of the Mandal surveyor on LS.OZ.2O25 itself. In the said r.eply dated LS.OZ.2O2S it was clearly stated that ttre impugnert notice is dated 1O.O7.2O2S but the notice of survey was scheduled on L6.OS.2A2S, which is previous date. It was also submitted that the notice indicted the Page 3 of5 impugned notice came to be issued on the application one Allugari Satryanarayana dated 31.05.2025 and as per the Memo of Tahsitdar uide Memo No.B/68 L /2025, dated

24.06.2025. However, ttre petitioner-Company has not been supplied with the application of Allugari Satyanarayana and Tatrsildar Memo. It was clearly stated in the reply dated L5.O7.2O25, tl'..e total extent of Acs.248.OO guntas in Sy.No.62 and from the notice under challenge it is not clear as to where the survey is to be conducted and on what basis demarcation is to be taken prace particularly in the absence of required details. 5' Notwithstanding the reply dated Ls.or.2o2s Mandar surveyor, Revenue Inspector came to the property of the on L6.OZ.2O2S and threatened to undertake survey. The trretitioner-Company resisted the strrvey in the absence of repty to the letter dated Ls.oz.2o2s and on such vague nodce survey cannot be conducted. After much persuasions tlre Ma'dar surveyor ad Rerrenue Inspector left the site stating that ttrey are bound to conduct ) ) Pagc 4 of5 survey. Respondent no.4 did not enter the property of tl.e petitioner-comparry. There are number of owners of the propc:rty in Sy.No.62 but the notice is given only to the applic:a41 and petitioner-Company leaving others. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. L,:arned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that erroneously the notice has been issued to the petitioner-Company inadvertently. Hence, he would also sail witn the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Company' ln the light of tl.e aforesaid facts and circumstances of 7. the case and upon perusing the material available on record' this Court is of the opinion that the issued notice dated \O'O7'2O25' without any application of mind.Ht:nce,thisCourtdeemsitappropriatetosetaside the notice No.B/68al2025' dated LO'O7 '2025' 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed' Needless to mention, it is open for the petitioner-ComPany that the oompany is at liberty to work-out the remedies if Page 5 of5 aggrievedbytheactionoft}rcoflicialrespondentsatthe behest of unoflicial respondent for the purpose of conducti4g ,], As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions,'if arry' pending' shall stand dismissed. SD/. T. SRIDEVI ASSISfANT /ffRUE COPY'/ To \

1. The Principal secretary, State of Telangana, Department- of Revenue' Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Cotlector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana State 3. The Tahsildar, Gandi Maisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana State

4. The Mandal Surveyor, Gandi Maisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District Telangana State

5. One CC to Ms. PRATUSHA BOPPANA, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

7. Two CD Copies MP \ --- HIGH. COURT DATED 31t1ot2o2s IIHEg 1? i,rg ln?E * ORDER ,? () - * WP.No.20g62 of 2025 ALLOW]NG THE WRIT PETIT1ON I I UT