[vl/s. Sreenidhi lT Spaces Pvt. Ltd v. 1. The State of Telangana

1 M/s. Sreenidhi lT Spaces Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as M/s. Phoenix lT Spaces Pvt. Ltd.,) (A Company registered under Companies Act), Office at Plot No.1057/M, 1st Floor,Sreenidhi Building, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad - 500 033,Rep.by its Authoriszed Signatory, Bendalam Srikanth, S/o. Bendalam Appalaraju, Aged about 35 years, Occ .Service, R/o.Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Kongarakalan. 4. The Tahsildar, Balapur [Vlandal, R.R.District. 5. The Deputy lnspector Survey and Land Records, Kandukur Revenue Divisional Office, R,R.District.

6. B.Raghu Alekh, s/o. B.Vijay Kumar,Occ .Business, R/o.Villa No.15, Aparna Elixir, Khajaguda,Manikonda [Vlakta,Kouser Ali, Hyderabad - 500 075.

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Revenue Division, Ranga Reddy District.

8. The Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef, Ranga Reddy District. ... RE S PON D E NTS/RESPON DE NTS 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 vacate the Daily Ordei dated 25.08.2025 in W.P. No.25053 of 2025,t or in the alternative, direct Respondent No.4 - Deputy lnspector of Survey and Land Records, Kandukur Revenue Division, Ranga Reddy District to forthwith submit the completed survey report in a sealed cover before this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such other order or orders. counselrorthePetitioner'rt"li,'S-?'rtSiHt',i?iALEKHA Counselfor the Respondents No.1to4&7: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counselfor the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI P.V.KRISHNAMACHARY Gounselfor the Respondents No.8 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER a . :i, I I i I i i f'. ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.25O53 of 2O25 This Writ Petition, under Article ' 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus anA other appropiate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in conducting surueA and demarcation conducted otl 08.08.2025 irt pursuance to Notice, dt.04.08.2025 in File No.G/3437/2025 at the instance of the Respondent 5 and 6 without notice to the petitioner, cts illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and fo .sef oside the sanrc. and to direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to act ht accordance uith law artd pass... " 2, Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.Ravinder, learnecl Assistant Government Pleader for Revenlre, for respondent Nos. I to 4 and 7 and Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 and perused the record.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute \a owner, and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.4.11 Gts, in 2 1 1 I Pagc 2 of 10 Sy.No.59 of Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Badangpet Municipality, R.R.District, having purchased the same under the registered Sale Deed bearing document No.366 /2O2O, dated O5.O7.2019. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the subject property. The vendor of the petitioner M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., got the land converted from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture under the proceedings of RDO, Balapur in Proceedings No.Ll2225/08, dated 30.O7.2OOB. The petitioner has applied for a layout for conversion of the iand into plots, and the same was sanctioned by HMDA in Draft Layout Proceedings No.OOOOO 6 ILO lPlgl HMD Al2O2t , dated 04.0 1.2021 and thereafter, the final Layout proceedings wras issued in No.OOOO33/LO /PIg/HMDAl2023, dated O5.O9.2023. The petitioner has fulfilled the conditions pertaining to the development of plots in the layout and the said draft layout as well as the final layout were forwarded by the HMDA to the Badangpet Municipal Corporation and the said local body has released the sarne to the petitioner in procee$ins1 No.G L /TPS/ ll8l2o2l, dated 25.02.2021 and G i /TPS/ 2250 12023, dated 18.04.2024.

4. It is submitted that there is 150 feet Airport Cargo Road running from Jalpalty to Shamshabad Airport and the said road passes abutting the land of the petitioner. On the other side of the road Sy.No.306, is situated in the Village Mamidipally, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District. Respondent Nos.S ancl 6 are alleged to own some land in Sy.No.3O6, ,w,hich is situated on the other side of the Airport Cargo Road and it has nothing to do with the land in Sy.No.59 belonging to the petitioner. Respondent Nos.S and 6 have been interfering with the land of the petitioner though they do not own any property in Sy.No.S9 and there is Airport Cargo Road in between the land of the petitioner and respondent Nos.S and 6.

5. In order to resolve the dispute and to avoid the high- handed encroachment of respondent Nos.S and 6, the petitioner has approached the P.S. Pahadi Shareef and at the instance of the Police, the respondent Nos.S and 6 also have I I I I I i I)agc 4 of l0 a- appeared before the Police in the month of August, 2022. Defendant No.1 submitted a letter to the Police stating that let the properties of both the parties be surveyed by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records Department, R.R.District and they will abide b-v the result of the survey. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the A.D. S & LR, R.R. District requesting for a survey of the lands in Sy.No.306 & 59 of Mamidipally Village. The A.D Survey has taken place on 10.IO.2022 and the identification and demarcation of the lands in Sy.No.306 & 59 of Mamidipalll,' Village has taken place and a sketch was prepared and Panchanama was also prepared by the office of A.D. Survey. There is a road running between the Sy.Nos.306 & 59 and admittedly respondent Nos.S and 6 do not have an,r, land in Sy.No.59 and hence there is a clear identification of the land belonging to both the parties.

6. Despite the clear identification and demarcation of the lands in Sy.Nos.306 & 59 of Mamidipally Village, respondent Nos.S and 6 are acting in high handed manner and are making attempts to enter into the land of the petitioner. The ?'i petitioner has learnt that the local Police are sailing with respondent Nos.S and 6 and are keeping silent at the request made by the staff of the petitioner, seeking interference of the Police to prevent the encroachments. They have local influence and also they are in the habit of encroachment into the land of others and disturbing the peaceful possession of the land orvners. The petitioner has developed around 3BO plots in the entire extent of land by clubbing the same u,ith suit subject property and has already entered into Agreements with the intending purchasers for sale of the plots and has to execute Sale Deeds in favour of such plot purchasers. The petitioner has to handover possession of the Plots to the buyers.

7. In the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein in O.S.No.48Ol2025 in the Court of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and also sought temporary injunction in I.A.No.397 /2025. The learned Court has issued notice and the respondents therein have appeared in the said Court and filed counter in I.A. They Page 6 of l0 r-' have been seeking time for filing some documents and are trying to drag on the matter. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.S and 6 have appea-red before respondent No.4 for survey of land in Sy.No.3O6, Mamidipally Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District and respondent No.4 has initiated a fresh survey issuing notice, dated 04.O8.2025 in No.G/3437 12025. The purpose of the survey is to take measurements and to demarcate the land in Sy.No.3O6. No File notice has been issued to the petitioner herein and no opportunity has been given to the petitioner. As submitted above, the Survey and Demarcation of land in Sy.No.59 of Jalpally Village belonging to the petitioner and in Sy.No.306 of Mamidipally Village, has already taken place in the year 2022 itself and the sketch as well as Panchanama were also prepared. Respondent Nos.S and 6 cannot seek a fresh survey of their alleged land in Sy.No.306 of Mamidipally Village, that to without making the petitioner party to it.

8. Respondent No.4 has fixed the date of survey on

08.08.2025 and on that day the measurements were taken in the presence of respondent Nos.S and 6. The Police of i1 Page 7 ol l0 Pahadi Shareef P.S. also been present on that day on the site and assisted the survey. Respondent No.4 along r,vith his staff, respondent Nos.S and 6 as well as the Police have entered into the plots of the petitioner in Sy.No.59, during the course of the survey and started taking measurements. It is only then that the petitioner came to know about the survey conducted at the instance of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and despite asking respondent No.4 to give notice to the petitioner, it u,as not girren. In the course of the said suru,e1,, the demarcation stones of the plots made by the petitioner were removed and new demarcation has beqn done by pr-rtting different stones. This was done in a high handed manner by respondent No.4 at the instance of respondent Nos.S and 6.

9. Respondent No.4 cannot conduct any survey and cause demarcation of any land without issuing notice to the owner of the land and without permitting them to participate in the survey. In the instant case respondent No.4 has acted illegally conducting the survey at the instance of respondent Nos.S and 6 entering into the land of the TI l" j I, I l. I I I I i jr' i I i --a:--.ffi:: fr' petitioner in Sy.No.S9 and causing separate demarcation by removing the demarcation of plots already made by the petitioner. The said action of respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural justice and also illegal. By virtue of the said survey and demarcation conducted by respondent No.4, the respondent Nos.S and 6 are now claiming part of the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.59 also and are resorting to high handed entry into the land of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 wouid submit that the assertion that the petitioner has developed approximately 380 plots by clubbing the land in Sy.No.S9 and has entered into an agreement of sale with prospective purchasers is denied for want of knowledge. It is further denied that the specific plot numbers mentioned (Nos.282 to 294 and 38O to 387) fall within Sy.No.59 or that the respondents have in any manner interfered with the same. The allegations of illegal interference or obstruction by respondent Nos.S and 6, and the claim of potential irreparable loss to the petitioner, are denied in toto. The de-i:lrar'- Page 9 of l0 petitioner 1S put to strict proof of all such assertions Without admitting the contentions of the petitioner even if it is assumed that the petitioner has laid out a iayout plan misrepresenting the land situated in SY.No.306, which belongs to the respondents, as if it falls within Sy.No.59, such a layout and sale transactions are per se illegal Consequently, the respondents reserve their right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for cancellation of the said layout and any consequential sale transactions. 1 1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue '*,ould submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is is filed on assumptions and misconcei','ed and it presumptions. The respondent-authorities will follow due process of law before initiating any action on the subject property

12. 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 opinion that the parties to this writ petition are parties before the competent Civil Court. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.Nos.480 of 2025 against I { Page 10 of l0 I respondent Nos.S and 6 and respondent Nos.S and 6 [:;1 filed O.S.No.235 of 2024 against the petitioner herein, both the suits are pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 to submit an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of the land and to conduct survey of the subject property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor/Government Surveyor. Upon receipt of the Advocate Commissioner's Report, it is for the Civii Court to consider the same and pass appropriate orders and this Court also deems it appropriate to .set aside the notice dated O4.O8.2O25 in File No.G/3437 /2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneotls petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. . PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3. 4.

5. louTl l ?i:=tj"i,,itltf8[€ffiElffi? to.Two CCs to-GP FOR HOtvlE' High Court for tl- ^^ -- '"'Hrd"trbad' [OUTI t t.f*o CD CoPies u^r/rtr tffiif;t#t!?,{.e a n s a n a re State of Telangana at BSK BS W \ HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 f ( ORDER WP.No.25053 of 2025 iiis J t,i 1I DEC mfi i" ir .'. I /2 ;'r ,':Tf,r i',- i' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS