TH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE v. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO

6. K. Srinivas, S/o Mallesh, aged about 46 Years, Occ- Business, Rt/o. H.No, 6- 107, Kompally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, tVedchal- Malkajgiri District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Anicle 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the sth Respondent in issuing Notice bearing No. El94Ol2O25 dated 10.09.2025 fixing 19.09.2025 at 10-30 AM as the date for conducting the survey and demarcation as being illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitu tional and consequently set aside same 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 suspend Notice bearing No. E194012025 dated 10.09.2025 issued by the sth Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition 7 lA NO: 2 OF 202,i; Between: I I I AND K. Srinivas S/o Mallesh, aged about 46 Years, Occ- Elusiness, R/o. H.No. 6- 107, Komparry Virlage, Quthburlapur Mandal, ,:gE?fl JiE'L?g{iBi.J'ltt, "o.u lr4/s. Archarna Homes, a partnership firm represerted by its authorized signatory, li. Anand Rao S/o Late Narayan Rao, aged about 78 Years, Occ- Business. Ft/ o 1 7-1-388/8/55, Laxminasa, "o,orr:.-.i[t?Llo;Ji,{9BL11i,g_._

2. State of Telangana, Rept. by its Principal Secretary, R:venue Dept, Secretarrat, Hyderabad

3. District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Medchal- ftr'lalka.jgiri Diskict 5. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandimaisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-

6. Mandal Surreyor, Gand!maisamma Dundigal Mandal, lv4edchal- Malkajgiri Malkaygiri District District ...RES'oNDEN T'TRES,oNDENTS I To 5 Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the crcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interinr order granted on 19.09.2025 passed in W.P. No.28518 of

2025. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.6: SRI C. SATYAM REDDY, Sl:NIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SARASANI RAHtII. REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRrT PETITION No.2851a OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is fried under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefls:- "... to issue a "Writ of Mandamus' or any othe. appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the SIh Respondent in issuing Notice bearing N'.E/q4O/2025 dated 10.09.2025 hxing 19.09.2O25 at l0:3O AM as the date of conducting the survey and demarcation as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside same and pass such other order or orders...'

2. Heard Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.C.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record.

3. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 is the grandson of Golla Parvathamma, who originally owned Ac.12.23 gts., in Sy.Nos.196, 198 and 2OOlB, situated at Kompally Village, Qutbuilapur Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. In fact, in the year 1979, Golla Parvathamma sold an extent of Ac. 13.03 gts., under registered sale deed bearing document Nos.76B / 1979, 769 I 1979 , 77O / 1979 , 77 I I 1979 and 7721 1979 to third parties including one r, Ramanvarapu Durga Prem Chand (Ac.6.20 gt.s.), who is the predecessor-i. r -r itle of the petitioner.

4. He further states that as against holding of Ac. 12.23 gts., Golla Parvathamma sold Ac. 13.03 gts. In fact, physically, there was deficit of Land to an extent of Ac.O.36 gts. Tl-rus, in the year 1981, having realized that there is deficit of I.c.0.36 gts., on physical measurement, Ramanvarapu Durga Pr:m Chand sold Ac.5.24 gts., to I.V.Raghava Rao and others under registered sale deed bearing document No.5468 of 1982, daled 2O.11.19a2. However, taking advantage of wrong entries in the revenue records, respondent No.6 has filed a suit urrCe tl.S.No.2 124 of 20O6 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judgr:, Ranga Reddy District, at L. B. Nagar, for declaration of title a-rrd perpetual injunction and the sarne was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner hled AS.SR.No.2O81 of 2:025 which is pending in the Appellate Court. During the pender-rcy of the said appeal, the impugned survey Notice dated 10.09.2025 was issued on applir:ation of respondent No.6.

5. He conterds that respondent No.6 does not have any land in his possession and is wrongly claiming title to the suit land even after his grandmother has sold entire extent ie Sy.Nos.196, I I 3 198 and 2OOIB; that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.6 is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner- Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue states that this Court upon considering the fact that the appeal frled by' the petitioner challenging the decree passed by the trial Court is pending before the Appellate Court, had granted interim suspension of the impugned Notice dated 10.09.2025, until further orders. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, survey was not conducted yet. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 by filing counter afhdavit submits that the petitioner has not stated the grounds of challenge of the survey notice dated 1O.O9.2O25; that if the petitioner has got any grievance against the impugned notice, he ought to have filed an application in the Appeal Suit or before the revenl.re authorities but that he cannot file the Writ Petition He further states that petitioner Iiled C.R.P.No. 1468 of 2018 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2O23. Therefore, he states that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. I 4 \ B. Having regard to the submissions of n-rl the iearned counsel and upon considering the fact tha'- the suit vide O.S.No.2124 of 2006 hled b-y respondent No.6 {re-numbered as O.S.No.32l ot 2017 on the file of the learned Additiona-l Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Maikajgiri District) seeking Declaration ol title and Perpetual lnjunction u,as decreed vide judgment dat:d 07.08.2025 in favour of responclent No.6 and the appeal lrreferred IS pending consideratir:,rr before the competent Corrrt, this Court is not inclined to en,ertain this Writ Petition, at this stage. Hou,ever, the petitioner is qranted liberty to work out the remedies as available under law.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. AHt\l!!D ABDULLA KHAN //TRUE COPY// One CC to Sri K Ravi lvlahender Advocate [OPU Two CCs to (3P For Revenue ,High Court for the One CC to Sri Sarasani Rahul Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies CER To,

1. 2. 3. 4. t\ilBC )w HIGH COURT EW,J DA'l'EiD: 2911012025 @' 'i) | ,.) 'R. (0 '\. i,\ I \| 2r[5 i , I *; ^,.-f : 1f ORDER WP.Nc,..28518 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE V\IRIT PETITION WIT'HOUT COSTS