The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Nalgonda District, At Nalgonda. The Tahsildar, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District The Deputy Surveyor, [Vliryalaguda l/anal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in communicating the report of the 4th respondent dt. 28-2-2024 wherein reufsed to conduct the survey of the petitioner's land in Sy.Nos. 630/4 and 630/3/6, admeasuring Ac. 0.20 gts., situated at Thungapahad village, Miryalagua fVlandal, Nalgonda District on the ground that he is not in possession of the land and that the petitioner refused to demarcate the total Sy.No. 630, without conducting proper enquiry, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the report dt.28-2-2024. lA NO: 1OF 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 pass orders directing the respondent No. 3 and 4 herein to conduct the survey and demarcation of the petitioner's land in Sy.Nos. 630/4 and 630/3/6, admeasuring Ac. 0.20 gts , situated at Thungapahad village, fi/iryalagua Mandal, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SHRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for lhe Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I ;. : ?.HE }TCI}d'BI,S SRI JEJSSICE E"V.VEI{UGOPAL WRIT P#TITION I{o.3 1?63 of 2G2S SRDES?: This Writ Petition is filed seeking w:rit of mandamus declaring the action. of the 3..i resopdnent in communicating the report of the 4th respondent da-ted

28.02.2024 refusing to conduct survey'of the petitior-:er's ianci in Sy.Nos.630l4 and 63O /316 admeasuring Acs.O.20 guntas, situated at Thungapahad village, Miryaiagucia Mancial, Nalgonda District (hereinafter wili be referred to as 'subject property') on the grou-nd that he is not in possession of the land and that the petitioner refu_sed to demarcate the total Sy.No.63O, u,ithout conducting prcoer enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and consequentlSr to set aside the report dateci 28.02.2024.

2. Heard learned counsei for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the F-Line Application No.DERO22300989933 dated I 2

10.10.2023 was considered by 3rd resporLdent/Tahsildar, the petitioner filed W.P.No.42B of

2024. This Court, vicie orai order dated 0B.O 7.2024, dispcsed of the said ,uvrit petition by directing the 3.d resporideni to consider the petitioner's F-Line applicaticn dated i0. tO.2C23 for conducting survey, demarcation, and fixatioe o1' boundaries in respect of the subject property, aiter issuing notice to ail concerned/interested persons, arld tr; perss appropriate orders in accordance with law n,ithin a perioci of forty-iive (45) days frorn the date of receipi. oi il copy of rhe said order. +. [,eareed counsel ior the petitioner wouid further submi.- thilt in pursuance of the order cf this court dated 0B.OL.2O2+, though the 4t1n respondent issued notices, r,i,ithout actuaLly conducting any survey, the 4tyr responcient subrnitted a report to the 3rd respondent on

28.O2.'.2A24- aileging that the petitioner was not in possession of the subject land; that SD records were avaiiat,le for part of the land in Sy.No.630; and that the petitionei- i'efused to demarcare the entire extent of 6 :i : 3 Ac.16.37 guntas in Sy.No.630, Thungapahad, and instead insisted on demarcating oniy his portion of Ac.0.20 guntas

5. The ieerrned counsel submits tl:rat the impugneci report is perverse since it inconsistently states that there are "no" SD records availabie for the part of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.630, Thungapahad. He also submits that the report of the 4th respondent refers to the circuiar of the Comm.issioner, Survey and Land Records, bearing No.NL/l4OBlO7, dated 13.O7.2007, which stipulates that Plwdi survey can be carried out oniy in cases cf peacefui possession of pattaCars and in the presence of adjoining ljoint pattadars. He contends that the 4t';t respondent has falseiy reported that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject property, despite the petitioner's name being duly entered in the revenlie records in respect oi the said land. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned report dated 28.02.2024.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, submits that unless and until the petitioner produces necessary 4 docunrentary evidence to show that he is in peaceful posser;sion cf the subject property, conducting further survev is not possible, carticularly in the absence of adjace nt pattadars or neighboring landholders. It is therefr>re contendec that no perversity can be attributed to the 4th respondent, and acccrdingly, he seeks dismissal of the writ p,:tition.

7. I{aving hearC the learned counsel for the petitioner anci '-he learned Assistant Government Pleader for Reven:le, and upon perusal of the material on record, this court find s that the survejr was not conducted in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.42B of 2024 dated 08.0I.2024, as the petitioner was allegedty not in possession of the subject property, and further, that there were no strb-division revenue records available. B. I.:r :hese circr:mstances, this Court deems it approprlia{g to grant liberty tc the petitioner to file necessary documents before the 3.d respondent to establish that h: hrrlds land in Sy.No.630 along with the relevant sub-di'rision number. Upon such fil'rng, the 3.d respondent , ,.,**, '4"4' 5 is directeci to examine the docurments, and if found to be in order, to conduct a re-survey of the said land by issuing notices to the petiticner and all other interested parties, affording them an opportunity of heai-ing, incruding adjacent neighbors/pattadars, and thereafter to pass r appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeciitiousi_r,' as po ssibie.

9. With the a'bove direction, this Writ petition i_" 'ciisposbd of. There shali be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/. M. OSMAN ALt ASSISTANT REG SECTION OFFICER of Telangana, To, '1. , The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, ' Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda District, At Nalgonda. 3 The Tahsildar, lrliryalaguda [\Iandal, Nalgonda District I The D^eputy_S1rv_ey_or, Miryalaguda Manil, Nalgonda District. 5. One CC to SRI K. SHRIKANTH REDDy, Advodate [OpUC] 6. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for thestate of relangana. 7. Two CD Copies BN TKS HIGH COURT DATED:i2311U2425 ORDER WP.No.3i1763 of 2025 .tHE S (J * 0 3 t i'l R 2ft2r * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOLIT COSTS o,b