The High Court · 2025

Petition underSection 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 interim order granted on 25.08.2025 in WP No.25066/2025. Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l TO 6: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 9: Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN PE N No. oF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. B. vamshidhar Reddy, learned counser for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 6 and Mr. vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9.

2.: i) Petitioner No.l is the husband of peritioner No.2. They are rhe absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasurilg Acs.l.25 guntas in survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3.l6 gunras in Suney No.306iB, Acs.l .22 guntas in survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 gunras i. Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.o2 guntas in survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 gunras in Survey No.307/D, Acs.l.l8 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in survey No.307tw2, making a total extent of Acs. l4.z4guntas, situated at Ainapur vilrage, Komuraveily Mandar, Siddipet District. having purchased the same under registered sare deeds in the year 2004. since the date of purchase, they are in peacefur possessi.n and enjoyment of the said lands. Their names were arso mutated in revenuc 2 KI.J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 records and patmdar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. There are standing crops i.e., paddy, mango, guava and banana over the subject lands' ii) When respondent Nos'4 and 5 issued notices dated ll'01'2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey of land in Survey Nos'270 and 304 of the aforesaid Village at the behest of respondent Nos'7 and 8' the petitioners flrled a writ petition vide W}'No26127 of 2024 to set aside those notices. Vide order dated 2l'09'2024' this Court disposed of the said writ pctition directing respondent No'5 to consider the objections of thc petitioncrs before proceeding with survey' iii) Therealter. respondent No'7 filed a suitvide O'S' No'474 of 2024 for pcrpctual iniunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac'0'18 guntas in Survey No.30'1/I]/l' Ac'O'tl guntas in Survey No'270 lGtlllll and Ac.O.l0 guntas in Survey No'304/l of the aforesaid Village and the said suit is pentling bclbre the Principal Junior Civil ludge' Siddipet' There is no interitn iniunction in the said suit' iv) Ihc pctitioncrs hcrein also hled a suit vide O'S' No'501 of 2024 tbr pcrpctuat injunction against respondent Nos'7 and 8 in respect 3 KL,J w.P. No.25O66 of 2025 of the subject property. Leamed trial Court granted interim injunction on 16.10.2024 and the same is being extended from time to time. v) During pendency of said civil suits, issuance of the aforesaid notices to conduct survey amounts to interference with the disputes pending between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners filed objection petition ro rhe notice dated 20.0g.2025 of respondent No.6. vi) When respondent Nos.7 and 8 also criminally trespassed into the subject lands with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop, the petitioners gave a report to the police, Konruravelli Police station, who in furn registered a case in crime No.l40 of 2020 against them for the offences under secrions - 32g (3) atld 324 (5) read with 3 (5) of BNS on l5.og.zoz4. on cornplerion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.1030 of 2\Z5,which is pending. vii) Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid rvrit petition, respondent No.6 had issued notice directing the petitioners to attend survey on 02.12.2024. challenging the same, petirioner No.l tiled a r.vrit petirion vide w.p. No.334g6 of 2024. vide order dared

06.01 -2025, this court disposed of the said writ petirion directilg rhe 4 Kl.J W.P. No.25065 of 2025 official respondents to conduct survey of lands in Survey Nos'270 and 304 after issuing notices to all the interested/affected parties' viii)AggrievedbythesaidordersinW.P.No.33496of2024, petitionerNo.lpreferredawritappea|videw.A.No'221of2025.Vide order dated 29.04.2025, a Division Bench of this court allowed the said writ appeal setting aside the notice dated 18.11.2024. Thereafter, respondent Nos.7 to 9 f,rled a contempt case vide c.c- No.1669 of 2025 against respondent Nos.5 and 6 alleging non-compliance of orders in W.P. No.26127 of 2024. ix) Respondent No.6 in apprehension of contempt proceedings, in hurried manner, passed an impugne{ Endorsement dated 20'08'2025 rejecting the objection petiti6n filed by the petitioners herein and without considering pendency of the albresaid civil suits' Chaltenging the said endorsement, the petitioners [iled the present writ petition' x)[nsupporto[theircontentions,thepetitionersatsoplaced reliance on the decision in Akku Laxman Rao v' IDPL Employees Cooperative [Iousing Society Limitedr' !{zozt (3) ALD io5 5 KL,J W.P. No.25065 of 2025

3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.7 ro 9: i) The lands of the petitioners are in survey Nos.306, 307 and 308 of Ainapur Village and they are no way concerned with the lands of these respondents. Their lands are in Survey Nos.304 and270 of the very same village. ii) [n paragraph No.l6 of order in w.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court observed that pendency of litigation before civil courts is not a bar for the Authorities to conduct survey or re- survey in the absence of any stay against the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed setting aside the order in w.p.No .33496 of 2024 filed by the peritioners herein. Therefore, respondent No.6 is bound to proceed with survey. Thus, the order dated 2o.og.zoz.5 of respondent No.6 is a reasoned order. iii) The petitioners cannot question the survey to be conducted in respect of land in Survey Nos.304 and 270, when the land of the petitioners is in Survey Nos.306 to 30g. iv) lhe present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with an intention to prevent the survey to be conducted. with the albresaid contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6 KL,J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 4 i) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.|.25 guntas in Survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3-16 guntas in survey No.306/B, Acs.l .22 guntas in Survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.307/D, Acs.l.l8 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.307/FV2, making a total extent of Acs.l4.24 guntas, situated at Ainapur village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 criminally trespassed into their lands with JCB along with their hcnchmen and damaged the crop' ii) Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sun'e1" Nos.304 and270 of Ainapur village. According to them, the petitioners' land is in Survey Nos'306' 307 and 308 of the very same vitlage. The petitioners' land is nothing to do with their land. Thus, there is dispute w'ith regard to the said land' A case in Crime No.140 of 2020 was registeretl against respondent Nos'7 and 8, and on completion of investigation. the police laid charge sheet against them' [t is taken on file vitle C"C' No' 1030 of 2025' 7 KI"J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 iii) Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No.50l of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction. The said suit is pending and the interim injunction is subsisting. iv) Respondent No.7 has filed a surit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction order. v) On the request made by respondent Nos.7 and,9, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey, demarcate the land in Survey Nos.270 and 304 of Ainapur Viilage by fixing boundaries. The petitioners have submitted objections dated 22.07.2024 to the said survey. without considering the sanle, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were proceeded with surv€y- The petitione$ chailenged the said notices by firing a writ petition vide w-p. No.26 r2T of 2024. vide or&rdated 2r.09.2024, this court disposed of rrre said writ petition directing reqpondent No.5 therein and the Tahsirdar, Kornaraveri Mandar to consider objections dated 22.07.2024 beforre proceeding with survey on the request made by respondent Nos'7 and g pursuant to the notices dated 1r.07.2024 and

30.08.2024. // j ,j 8 KLJ W P. No.25066 of2025 vi) It is apt to note that after the said order, respondent No.7 has filed a suit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession over the land to an extent Ac.O.l8 guntas in Survey No.304iBl1, Ac'o'11 guntas in Survey No.ZTlGllllll andAc.0.l0 guntas in Survey No.304/1, situated at Ainapur Village. The said suit is pending. There is no intertm injunction order' vii)Thereafter,thepetitionershavefiledasuitino.S.No.50lof 2024aganstrespondentNos.TandSforperpctualinjunctiontorestrain themfrominterferingwiththepossessionofthepetitionersor,erthe aforesaidlandAcs.|4.z4guntasofAinapurVillagc.Videorderdated

16.10.2024,leamedlAdditionalJuniorCivilJudgeatsiddipetgranted temporaryinjunctiontiltl5.||.2024andtheSameisbeingextended from time to time' The said suit is also pending and the interim injunction order is subsisting' viii)Itisalsoapttonotethatthereisnochallengetotheorder dated2i.og.2o24passedbythisCourtinW.P.No.26|27of2024. Thereafter,respondentNo.6hasissuedanoticedatedts.ll.2024for conductingsurveyoflandsinSurveyNtrs.304and2T0ofAinapur ViltageontherequestmadebyrespondentNos.TandS.PetitionerNo.l 9 Kl.J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.33496 of 2024 challenging the said notice. Vide order dated 06.01 .2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition holding that if the application submitted by respondent Nos.7 ro 9 fulfils all the requirements of circular instructions issued by the commissioner, Survey and Land Records and the injunction order granted in o.S. No.50l of 2024 is nor operating on the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304, the respondent authorities were directed to conduct survey of the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304 after issuing notice to all interested/affected persons and after considering their objections, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. i*) Feeling aggrieved b,v' rhe said order, petitioner No.l had preferred an Intra court Appcal vide w.A. No.22l of 2025 under Section - l5 of the Letters Parenr. vide judgment dated z9.o4.zoz5, the Division Bench of this Court rvhile atlowing the said writ appeal set aside the said impugned notice dared 18.11.2024 issued by the respondent authorities for conducting survey holding that pendency of litigation before the Court is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or re-survey in the absence of any staylinterim order/tnterim injunction from proceeding f urther. \ l0 KL,J W P. No 25066 ol'2025 x) Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 20.08.2025, respondent No.6 considered the objections submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same. Challenging the salne, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. xi) In the said impugned endorsement, respondent No.6 placed reliance on the order dated 21.09.2024 in W.P. No.26l2l of 2024, order dated 06.01 .2025 in W.P. No.33496 of 2024 and the judgment dated

29.04.2025 in w.A. No.22l of 2025. In the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the principle laid down by another Division Bench ol this Court in Akku Laxman Rao v. IDPL Employees Co-operative Housing Society2. xii) In the said decision, common order dated 10.02.2020 of leamed Single Judge was under challenge. vide common order dated

10.02.2020, learned Single Judge held that the commissioner and the zu)D failed to notice that the request to conduct survey was not bona fitle. There was clear suppression of earlier survey and decision of the commissioner. Thus, equities are against respondent Nos'6 and 7 therein. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have entenained such t. lol I st'c ()n[.ine TS 1983 KL,J W.P. No.25065 of 2025 application, even assuming that such course is permissible. Learned Single Judge further held that respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein have filed suits in O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014, the same are pending. Nothing prevented respondent Nos.6 and 8 from moving application to conduct suryey. When there is a inter se dispute pending adjudication by competent Court, administrative authorities should hold their hands and a[[ow persons to get their disputes resolved by the competent Court. With the said observation, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. In an appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the said order. xiii) As discussed above, in the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Cour-t held that during pendency of litigation before Courts is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or resurvey in the ahsetrce of any staylinterim orderlinterim injunction from proceeding further. Whereas, in the present case, the suit frled by the petitioners in O.S. No.50l of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 tbr perpetual injunction is pending and the trial Court granted temporary injunction and the sarne is subsisting. Therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case. l2 KL,J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 xiv) As discussed above, it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that respondent Nos.7 and 8 tried to trespass into the subject land with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop. Therefore, they have lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.7 and 8. The Police, Komuravelli police Station registered a case in Crime No.l40 of 2020 against them for the offences under Sections - 329 (3) and 324 (s) read with 3 (5) of BNS on

15.09.2024. on completion of investigation, the lnvesrigating officer laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as c.c. No.l030 of 2025 and the same is pending. .xv) II'there is dispute with regard to boundaries and identification of propert)' etc., and if physical features of subject property are to he noted down, the parties to the aforesaid suits have to file an application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC, to appoint an Adv<lcare Comntissioner for the purpose of conducting survey, demarcating thc land by fixing boundaries and also for noting down physical f'eatures of property. 't'he object and purpose of obtaining report from the Advocate Commissioner is to assist trial Court in deciding /ri involved in the sr.rits effectively'. l3 KT.J W.P- No.25O65 of A)25 xvi) Admittedly, in the present case, there are inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9. According to the petitioners, their land is in Survey Nos.306, 307 and 308, whereas according to respondent Nos.7 to 9, their land is in Survey Nos.304 and 270 and the said land is nothing to do with the lands of the petitioners. Thus, it appears there is boundary dispute. Therefore, they have to file an application under order - xxvl, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suits seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department oflicials to demarcate the suit schedule properties in the said suit by fixing boundaries, and it is for the trial Court to consider the said applications. xvii) During pendency of the said suits, parties to the suits cannot seek survey of the lands frorn the Survey Departrrrent officials as it amoun6 to collection of, evidence vr,lrich is inrpermissible. [n the afloresaid suits, the lnterlocutory Applications [iled by the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9 seeking temporary injunction are also pending. Therefore, respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot seek survey frorn respondent No.6 during pendency of the said suit. [r amounr.s to collection of I t I evidence which is impermissible. l4 KI'J W.P. No.25066 of 2025

5. CONCLUSION: In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners, plaintifls in O.S. No.50l of 2024 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 to file appropriate application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suirs, to appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department Officials, demarcate the suit schedule properties by fixing boundaries, and it is for thc trial Couft to corrsirlcr the said application and dispose it of in accordance with law. In the circumstances olthe case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if an1... pending in thc writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- U. SUDHA TANT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER at, DR. BR Ambetkar /,TRUE COPYII To

1. The Principa I Secretary, Revenue DePartment, Sec 2 3 4 Bhavan, Hyde rabad, State of Telanga The District Collector, Siddipet District The Director of S Collectorate Sidd The lnspector of Collectorate SiddiPet District. urvey, District Land Survey and Record ipet District, Survey, District Land Survey and Records, Office at s, Office at

5. The Mandal Surv6yor, Komaravelly Mandal, Siddipet District' 6. The Tahsildar, Koriraravelli Mandal, Siddipet District. 7. one cCio sit B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] B. two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI ohe cc to M-s. vEbuLA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies

9. 10 PSK PVL o'. HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 WP.No.25066 of 2025 '( HE STA <) 0 1 JAN l'J1 i't k / .,^'k.5. '-1':; IIIEIItrEIN G c OF THE WRIT PETITION OSTS

Petition underSection 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 interim order granted on 25.08.2025 in WP No.25066/2025. Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l TO 6: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 9: Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN PE N No. oF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. B. vamshidhar Reddy, learned counser for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 6 and Mr. vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9.

2.: i) Petitioner No.l is the husband of peritioner No.2. They are rhe absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasurilg Acs.l.25 guntas in survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3.l6 gunras in Suney No.306iB, Acs.l .22 guntas in survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 gunras i. Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.o2 guntas in survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 gunras in Survey No.307/D, Acs.l.l8 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in survey No.307tw2, making a total extent of Acs. l4.z4guntas, situated at Ainapur vilrage, Komuraveily Mandar, Siddipet District. having purchased the same under registered sare deeds in the year 2004. since the date of purchase, they are in peacefur possessi.n and enjoyment of the said lands. Their names were arso mutated in revenuc 2 KI.J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 records and patmdar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. There are standing crops i.e., paddy, mango, guava and banana over the subject lands' ii) When respondent Nos'4 and 5 issued notices dated ll'01'2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey of land in Survey Nos'270 and 304 of the aforesaid Village at the behest of respondent Nos'7 and 8' the petitioners flrled a writ petition vide W}'No26127 of 2024 to set aside those notices. Vide order dated 2l'09'2024' this Court disposed of the said writ pctition directing respondent No'5 to consider the objections of thc petitioncrs before proceeding with survey' iii) Therealter. respondent No'7 filed a suitvide O'S' No'474 of 2024 for pcrpctual iniunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac'0'18 guntas in Survey No.30'1/I]/l' Ac'O'tl guntas in Survey No'270 lGtlllll and Ac.O.l0 guntas in Survey No'304/l of the aforesaid Village and the said suit is pentling bclbre the Principal Junior Civil ludge' Siddipet' There is no interitn iniunction in the said suit' iv) Ihc pctitioncrs hcrein also hled a suit vide O'S' No'501 of 2024 tbr pcrpctuat injunction against respondent Nos'7 and 8 in respect 3 KL,J w.P. No.25O66 of 2025 of the subject property. Leamed trial Court granted interim injunction on 16.10.2024 and the same is being extended from time to time. v) During pendency of said civil suits, issuance of the aforesaid notices to conduct survey amounts to interference with the disputes pending between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners filed objection petition ro rhe notice dated 20.0g.2025 of respondent No.6. vi) When respondent Nos.7 and 8 also criminally trespassed into the subject lands with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop, the petitioners gave a report to the police, Konruravelli Police station, who in furn registered a case in crime No.l40 of 2020 against them for the offences under secrions - 32g (3) atld 324 (5) read with 3 (5) of BNS on l5.og.zoz4. on cornplerion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.1030 of 2\Z5,which is pending. vii) Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid rvrit petition, respondent No.6 had issued notice directing the petitioners to attend survey on 02.12.2024. challenging the same, petirioner No.l tiled a r.vrit petirion vide w.p. No.334g6 of 2024. vide order dared

06.01 -2025, this court disposed of the said writ petirion directilg rhe 4 Kl.J W.P. No.25065 of 2025 official respondents to conduct survey of lands in Survey Nos'270 and 304 after issuing notices to all the interested/affected parties' viii)AggrievedbythesaidordersinW.P.No.33496of2024, petitionerNo.lpreferredawritappea|videw.A.No'221of2025.Vide order dated 29.04.2025, a Division Bench of this court allowed the said writ appeal setting aside the notice dated 18.11.2024. Thereafter, respondent Nos.7 to 9 f,rled a contempt case vide c.c- No.1669 of 2025 against respondent Nos.5 and 6 alleging non-compliance of orders in W.P. No.26127 of 2024. ix) Respondent No.6 in apprehension of contempt proceedings, in hurried manner, passed an impugne{ Endorsement dated 20'08'2025 rejecting the objection petiti6n filed by the petitioners herein and without considering pendency of the albresaid civil suits' Chaltenging the said endorsement, the petitioners [iled the present writ petition' x)[nsupporto[theircontentions,thepetitionersatsoplaced reliance on the decision in Akku Laxman Rao v' IDPL Employees Cooperative [Iousing Society Limitedr' !{zozt (3) ALD io5 5 KL,J W.P. No.25065 of 2025

3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.7 ro 9: i) The lands of the petitioners are in survey Nos.306, 307 and 308 of Ainapur Village and they are no way concerned with the lands of these respondents. Their lands are in Survey Nos.304 and270 of the very same village. ii) [n paragraph No.l6 of order in w.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court observed that pendency of litigation before civil courts is not a bar for the Authorities to conduct survey or re- survey in the absence of any stay against the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed setting aside the order in w.p.No .33496 of 2024 filed by the peritioners herein. Therefore, respondent No.6 is bound to proceed with survey. Thus, the order dated 2o.og.zoz.5 of respondent No.6 is a reasoned order. iii) The petitioners cannot question the survey to be conducted in respect of land in Survey Nos.304 and 270, when the land of the petitioners is in Survey Nos.306 to 30g. iv) lhe present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with an intention to prevent the survey to be conducted. with the albresaid contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6 KL,J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 4 i) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.|.25 guntas in Survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3-16 guntas in survey No.306/B, Acs.l .22 guntas in Survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.307/D, Acs.l.l8 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.307/FV2, making a total extent of Acs.l4.24 guntas, situated at Ainapur village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 criminally trespassed into their lands with JCB along with their hcnchmen and damaged the crop' ii) Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sun'e1" Nos.304 and270 of Ainapur village. According to them, the petitioners' land is in Survey Nos'306' 307 and 308 of the very same vitlage. The petitioners' land is nothing to do with their land. Thus, there is dispute w'ith regard to the said land' A case in Crime No.140 of 2020 was registeretl against respondent Nos'7 and 8, and on completion of investigation. the police laid charge sheet against them' [t is taken on file vitle C"C' No' 1030 of 2025' 7 KI"J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 iii) Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No.50l of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction. The said suit is pending and the interim injunction is subsisting. iv) Respondent No.7 has filed a surit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction order. v) On the request made by respondent Nos.7 and,9, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey, demarcate the land in Survey Nos.270 and 304 of Ainapur Viilage by fixing boundaries. The petitioners have submitted objections dated 22.07.2024 to the said survey. without considering the sanle, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were proceeded with surv€y- The petitione$ chailenged the said notices by firing a writ petition vide w-p. No.26 r2T of 2024. vide or&rdated 2r.09.2024, this court disposed of rrre said writ petition directing reqpondent No.5 therein and the Tahsirdar, Kornaraveri Mandar to consider objections dated 22.07.2024 beforre proceeding with survey on the request made by respondent Nos'7 and g pursuant to the notices dated 1r.07.2024 and

30.08.2024. // j ,j 8 KLJ W P. No.25066 of2025 vi) It is apt to note that after the said order, respondent No.7 has filed a suit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession over the land to an extent Ac.O.l8 guntas in Survey No.304iBl1, Ac'o'11 guntas in Survey No.ZTlGllllll andAc.0.l0 guntas in Survey No.304/1, situated at Ainapur Village. The said suit is pending. There is no intertm injunction order' vii)Thereafter,thepetitionershavefiledasuitino.S.No.50lof 2024aganstrespondentNos.TandSforperpctualinjunctiontorestrain themfrominterferingwiththepossessionofthepetitionersor,erthe aforesaidlandAcs.|4.z4guntasofAinapurVillagc.Videorderdated

16.10.2024,leamedlAdditionalJuniorCivilJudgeatsiddipetgranted temporaryinjunctiontiltl5.||.2024andtheSameisbeingextended from time to time' The said suit is also pending and the interim injunction order is subsisting' viii)Itisalsoapttonotethatthereisnochallengetotheorder dated2i.og.2o24passedbythisCourtinW.P.No.26|27of2024. Thereafter,respondentNo.6hasissuedanoticedatedts.ll.2024for conductingsurveyoflandsinSurveyNtrs.304and2T0ofAinapur ViltageontherequestmadebyrespondentNos.TandS.PetitionerNo.l 9 Kl.J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.33496 of 2024 challenging the said notice. Vide order dated 06.01 .2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition holding that if the application submitted by respondent Nos.7 ro 9 fulfils all the requirements of circular instructions issued by the commissioner, Survey and Land Records and the injunction order granted in o.S. No.50l of 2024 is nor operating on the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304, the respondent authorities were directed to conduct survey of the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304 after issuing notice to all interested/affected persons and after considering their objections, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. i*) Feeling aggrieved b,v' rhe said order, petitioner No.l had preferred an Intra court Appcal vide w.A. No.22l of 2025 under Section - l5 of the Letters Parenr. vide judgment dated z9.o4.zoz5, the Division Bench of this Court rvhile atlowing the said writ appeal set aside the said impugned notice dared 18.11.2024 issued by the respondent authorities for conducting survey holding that pendency of litigation before the Court is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or re-survey in the absence of any staylinterim order/tnterim injunction from proceeding f urther. \ l0 KL,J W P. No 25066 ol'2025 x) Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 20.08.2025, respondent No.6 considered the objections submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same. Challenging the salne, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. xi) In the said impugned endorsement, respondent No.6 placed reliance on the order dated 21.09.2024 in W.P. No.26l2l of 2024, order dated 06.01 .2025 in W.P. No.33496 of 2024 and the judgment dated

29.04.2025 in w.A. No.22l of 2025. In the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the principle laid down by another Division Bench ol this Court in Akku Laxman Rao v. IDPL Employees Co-operative Housing Society2. xii) In the said decision, common order dated 10.02.2020 of leamed Single Judge was under challenge. vide common order dated

10.02.2020, learned Single Judge held that the commissioner and the zu)D failed to notice that the request to conduct survey was not bona fitle. There was clear suppression of earlier survey and decision of the commissioner. Thus, equities are against respondent Nos'6 and 7 therein. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have entenained such t. lol I st'c ()n[.ine TS 1983 KL,J W.P. No.25065 of 2025 application, even assuming that such course is permissible. Learned Single Judge further held that respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein have filed suits in O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014, the same are pending. Nothing prevented respondent Nos.6 and 8 from moving application to conduct suryey. When there is a inter se dispute pending adjudication by competent Court, administrative authorities should hold their hands and a[[ow persons to get their disputes resolved by the competent Court. With the said observation, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. In an appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the said order. xiii) As discussed above, in the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.22l of 2025, the Division Bench of this Cour-t held that during pendency of litigation before Courts is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or resurvey in the ahsetrce of any staylinterim orderlinterim injunction from proceeding further. Whereas, in the present case, the suit frled by the petitioners in O.S. No.50l of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 tbr perpetual injunction is pending and the trial Court granted temporary injunction and the sarne is subsisting. Therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case. l2 KL,J W.P. No.25066 of 2025 xiv) As discussed above, it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that respondent Nos.7 and 8 tried to trespass into the subject land with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop. Therefore, they have lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.7 and 8. The Police, Komuravelli police Station registered a case in Crime No.l40 of 2020 against them for the offences under Sections - 329 (3) and 324 (s) read with 3 (5) of BNS on

15.09.2024. on completion of investigation, the lnvesrigating officer laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as c.c. No.l030 of 2025 and the same is pending. .xv) II'there is dispute with regard to boundaries and identification of propert)' etc., and if physical features of subject property are to he noted down, the parties to the aforesaid suits have to file an application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC, to appoint an Adv<lcare Comntissioner for the purpose of conducting survey, demarcating thc land by fixing boundaries and also for noting down physical f'eatures of property. 't'he object and purpose of obtaining report from the Advocate Commissioner is to assist trial Court in deciding /ri involved in the sr.rits effectively'. l3 KT.J W.P- No.25O65 of A)25 xvi) Admittedly, in the present case, there are inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9. According to the petitioners, their land is in Survey Nos.306, 307 and 308, whereas according to respondent Nos.7 to 9, their land is in Survey Nos.304 and 270 and the said land is nothing to do with the lands of the petitioners. Thus, it appears there is boundary dispute. Therefore, they have to file an application under order - xxvl, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suits seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department oflicials to demarcate the suit schedule properties in the said suit by fixing boundaries, and it is for the trial Court to consider the said applications. xvii) During pendency of the said suits, parties to the suits cannot seek survey of the lands frorn the Survey Departrrrent officials as it amoun6 to collection of, evidence vr,lrich is inrpermissible. [n the afloresaid suits, the lnterlocutory Applications [iled by the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9 seeking temporary injunction are also pending. Therefore, respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot seek survey frorn respondent No.6 during pendency of the said suit. [r amounr.s to collection of I t I evidence which is impermissible. l4 KI'J W.P. No.25066 of 2025

5. CONCLUSION: In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners, plaintifls in O.S. No.50l of 2024 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 to file appropriate application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suirs, to appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department Officials, demarcate the suit schedule properties by fixing boundaries, and it is for thc trial Couft to corrsirlcr the said application and dispose it of in accordance with law. In the circumstances olthe case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if an1... pending in thc writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- U. SUDHA TANT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER at, DR. BR Ambetkar /,TRUE COPYII To

1. The Principa I Secretary, Revenue DePartment, Sec 2 3 4 Bhavan, Hyde rabad, State of Telanga The District Collector, Siddipet District The Director of S Collectorate Sidd The lnspector of Collectorate SiddiPet District. urvey, District Land Survey and Record ipet District, Survey, District Land Survey and Records, Office at s, Office at

5. The Mandal Surv6yor, Komaravelly Mandal, Siddipet District' 6. The Tahsildar, Koriraravelli Mandal, Siddipet District. 7. one cCio sit B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] B. two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI ohe cc to M-s. vEbuLA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies

9. 10 PSK PVL o'. HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 WP.No.25066 of 2025 '( HE STA <) 0 1 JAN l'J1 i't k / .,^'k.5. '-1':; IIIEIItrEIN G c OF THE WRIT PETITION OSTS