The High Court · 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings in proc. No. 441223912024 dated 2211012025 on the file of the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI P.SREEDHAR REDDY, SpL. Gp Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRt P.RAGHU RAM, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRt SRIKAR JONNALAGADDA SRIP.SRIRAM W.P.NO: 32604OF 2025 Between: i! 1 . Nukala Fjkshapathi, S/o. Late_ Nukala Mallaiah aged about 6g years. 2. Nukala Mallesh, S/o Nukala Bikshapathi, aged about 45 yeard Ji.l Both Rl/o H.No.1-9BiAlE, Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District

3. Nukala Gopal, S/o Nukala Bikshapathi, aqed about 43 vears Rl/o H.No . ?9F6!Cl_?, Madhapur, Serilingampaily, R R Dlstrict i, 4. Nukala Mahesh, S/o Nukala Bikshairathi, aged aboLii 40 years Rl/o H No 1- 9B/'13, Arunodaya Colony, Madhapui, Serilinqampallv Rancia Reddv Distrtl 5. Gundeboina Shoba, wo Gundeboina siva-iinqim'D/o N*ukala a'itsnaoiit'i. aged about 40 years Rl/o H.No. 1-24, Himaya{hsagar, Golconda, Hydeiabjd District

6. Nukala Prem Kumar, S/o Late Nukala pentaiah, aqed about 34 vears 7. N.Mallesh Yadav, S/o Late Nukala Pentaiah aged-about 35 yeais 8. Nukala Eswaramma, W/o Late Nukala pentaia-h agedabout'Sg years i Petitioner Nos.6 to B Fyo H.No.2-56l33/j2lE, Sai Nagar, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

9. N..Anuradh", W/:, N,q[\g ,Trt :! yqdgv, D/o Late Nukala pentaiah, aged 3.bo.ut 34 years R/o H.No.fi-a-qazfit1o1, Raja ehjgarinois aidh; xb*in, Hyderabad 10.N.San9!ha.,.p/o N.Ramulu Yadav D/o Late Nukala Krishna, aged about 31 rea!! (o H.No.2-s6t33112lE, sai Nagar, Madhapur, Seritiniaripittv,-ni.g Reddy District. 11.Nukala Ramulu Yadav, s/o Late N.Mailiah, aged about 5g years R/o H No 2- . ^ ?9I3?I .12lE, Sai.Naqgr,.tr/adtrap-u1, serilingim[aily, nangiieddv b-iJtri"t l2.Nookala SudhakarYadav, S/o Nookala Ramulu VaOiv]igeO i6ort 2i years R/o H.No. 2-sol33lcl1, sai Nagar, tr/adhapur, serilingardittv, nrnga neoov District t., I I t .; 1 * .t .J, -Ll the objections/representation made by petitioners on 24.1O.2025, as ilegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the 4th Respondent to consider the objections/representation made by the petitioners on 24.10.2025 and thereafter take decision regarding the application made by the Sth Respondent for conducting survey of the above lands Award costs. 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings in proc.No. 441223912024 dated 2211012025 on the file of the 4th Respondent. pending disposal of W.P.No, of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 4: sRr P.SREEDHAR REDDY, SPL. GP FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No.5: sRr P.RAGHU RAM, sENtoR couNSEL FoR SRI P.SRI RAM The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER :l ! * f F' ,: it., ,:ti : i l lr* t; *; ra -: t' .-: I , ; I I f : -. !t .l It t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos.32594 and 326O4 of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed seeking the following prayer: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring and setting aside the proceedings in Proc.No. A41233912024 dated 22.IO.2025 on the file of the 4tt' Respondent, proposirlg to conduct survey and demarcation of lancls in Sy. Nos.4, 5, ii, 9, 10 and 4119,4lllO, 4llLl and 4lll2 admeasuring Ac.26.14 guntas situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampall-v Manclal, Ranga Reddy District on 29.1O.2O25 without consiclering the objections/ representation made by petitioners olt 21.1O.2O25, as illegal, arbitrary and without juriscliction and to consequently direct the 4th Respondent to consider the objections/ representation made by the petitioners on 24.1O.2025 atrcl therealter take decision regarding the application mzrde tl-v the 5trr Respondent for conducting survey of the above lancls..."

2. Since the impugned notice No.A41233912024, dated

22.LO.2025, which is under challenge before this Court is one J and the same, both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order-

3. Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for State appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4, Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel representing Sri P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.S and Mr. Srikar 2 Jonnalagadda, learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7. perused the record.

4. Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, rearned counsel for trre petitioners vehemently contended that under the pretext .f conducting survey pertaining to survey number No.41, situated at Khanmet v,lage, serilingampally Mandal, Ra.ga Reddy District, an attempt has been made by the officiar respo.dents at the behest o[ unofficial respondents on their apprication to conduct survey and to encroach upon the land to an extent of 3367 Sq' yds out of r2oo Sq. yds falring in 51, No.4 r / 12 r A which belongs to the petitioners, who are the acrjacent land o\^rners' Accordingly, based upon such apprehe.sion, these writ petitions have been filed. 5' He further contended that on the earlier occilsion, the location sketch of Khanamet vilrage was conducted. [t has not been challe,ged either by petitioners or the unofficial respondents. l\ccordingly in the presence . of Tahsildar of Serilingampally Mandal with the assistance of Deputy Inspector of Survey, HMDA and Mandal Surveyor, 3 serilingampally Mandal, survey numbers have already been decided and demarcated. Hence, the petitioners have recorded their written objections by addressing a letter to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District dated 24.IO.2O25, which are extracted hereunder:- "The undersigned are in receipt of your Notice citccl uncler reference seeking to conduct survev of the sub.iect lancls on 29.1O.2O25, oo the applications datecl lg.g.2024 ancl 22.10.2025 filed by M/s Rajeshwari Farms and Estares pvt. Limited represented by D.Suresh Babu. In this regard we submit that rve are the orvners and possessors of land in Sy.No. 4l I lU A and 4l I 12l A situared ar Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga lledd-r' District (within the limits of GHMC) having purchased the same through Regd. Sale Deeds. Earlier rvhen a notice was issued for surve-ving the subject lands, we have approached the Hon'ble ttigh Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad by filing W p No. 519 of 2025. The Hon'ble High Court, by Order dated 6.10.2025, was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition. When the Writ Petition was argued, the Learned Advocate General appearing for the State, defending your action has reported to the Court that the application made by M/s Rajeshwari Farms and Estates pvt Limited was F-Line application which is onl_r' meant for measurement of agricultural lands u,hereas the property in question is an urban property and therefore there is no provision for demarcation of urban properties. It is also further stated that your office is not empowered to conduct survey of properties in urban areas and Government has issued instructions and circulars permitting the respective parties to take the conduct survey of properties in urban areas and Government has issued help of private Surveyors and get their lands demarcated. Inspite of the same, notice cited under reference has been issued by you on the application made by M/s Rajeshwari Farms and Estates Pvt. Limited which is nothing but acting without jurisdiction. Therefore, the undersigned hereby call upon your authority to kindly explain under which provision of larv the survey is sought to be conducted on 29.1O.2O25, as intimated vide your notice dated 22.IO.2O25. Unless the same is explainecl, you cannot proceed with the survey as stated in the notice dated 22.1O.2025. 4 ln the light of the above, -vou are requested to desist from conducting survey on 29.1O.2O25, as proposed by you vicle your notice datecl 22. 1O.2025."

6. He further contended that the impugned notice has been issued based upon the earlier round of litigation in compliance to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier rvrit petition in WP.Nos.482 and 519 of 2025, where this Court has passed the common order on 06.1O.2025, which is extracted hereunder:- "ln the light of the said submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Deputy lnspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, to considcr the represerrtation dated 24.O9.2024 submitted by responclent No.5 with a request to conduct survey, demarcate thc land admeastrrrrrg Acs.5.OO guntas in Sy.No.41/ 12 of Khanamet Village, Strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioners, respondent No.5 and all interested parties on notice and aflording them an opportunity. if the Deputy Inspector of Survey is not ir-rclined to accept the request made by respondent No.5, he shall tr)ass a speaking order assigning reasons. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of forty-five (a5) rvorkirrg cla_ys lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this ordr:r."

7. In compliance to the order passed by this Court, F-line application has been filed and in pursuance of the said F-line application, the impugned notice has been given. He 'n/ould submit that there is a possibility that if the survey has been conductect in Sy.No.4Il12, where the petitioners land is situated in Sy.No.4ll12/A, the survey may over lap upon the petitioners property and there is a threat of dispossession from 5 the said land under the pretext of survey. Accordingly, he would seek to pass appropriate orders. B. Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel representing Sri P.sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that there are earlier round of litigations arising out of the same issue and the said issue has not come to an end in view of filing of multiple writ petitions, where ultimately survey vvas not conducted in respect of the land pertaining to the survey number of the petitioners being legally entitled owners of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 22.oL.2022 vide regisrered Doc.No.469L /2022 on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Serilingampally and also a rectification deed dated 22.o4.2024 which is also registered at the sub-Registrar offipe, Ranga Reddy District vide Doc No.7967 /2024, dated 22.o4.2024. He further submitted that the schedule of property clearly denote that the petitioners have made an objection for conducting survey pertaining to survey number as per the schedule of properties mentioned in the said sale deed. It is further submitted that based upon that title, by which the petitioner has #m holding title legally, made an application lor \ 6 conducting survey and on one or other pretext, survey has been stalled by the petitioners herein only due to apprehension and without there being any substance. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 v'ould take no objection to consider the objections merde by the petitioners herein, during course of survey. [n order to put quietus to the litigation, he would seek to pass appropriate direction to conduct survey in compliance to the notice issued by the officiar respondents uid.e notice No.A4 / 2339 / 2024, dated 22.tO.2025.

9. By filing implead petition uid.e I.A.No.2 of 2o2s in w.P.No.32594 of 2o2s, Mr. srikar Jonnalagadda, learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.6 and, T ,*.ould seek to issue notice to the proposed respondent Nos.6 ancl z and also stating that they are adjacent land owners to the survey numbers that are being surveyed in respect of the impugned notice issued by the officiai respondents.

10. Learned senioi- counsel representing respondent No.5 takes no objectior-r 7

11. Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for State appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the survey will be conducted strictly ln compliance to the circulars issued from time to time by the Commissioner, Land Administration, by issuing notices to all concerned parties from four corners of the boundaries of the property in possession pertaining to Sy.Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 4Ll9,4lllO,4U 11 and 4ll12 adrneasuring Ac.26.14 guntas In order to put quietus to the litigation, he would seek to pass appropriate orders, so that no other litigation will crop up in conducting the survey as the official respondents are under exertion of pressure for non-conducting of survey and in order to avoid wastage ofjudiciary time apart from the administrative time of the official respondents. .i \

12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned senior counsel for respondent No.5, learned Special ( f Government Pleader for State, learned counsel for proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7 and upon careful perusal of the material placed before this Court, in order to put quietus to litigation between the parties to these writ petitions, this Court 8 deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to conduct survey by issuing fresh notice as the notice No.A4/2339/2024, dated 22.to.2025, which is impugned in this writ petition has already been rendered infructuous due to afflux of time, strictly in accordance with law, as per the procedure established by law, by issuing notices to atl concerned parties by considering the objections raised by the petitioners herein, as expeditiously as possible without any further delay.

13. with the above directions these writ pet.itions are disposed of Miscellaneous apprications, if any pending, shail also stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. at Kongara Kalan Village, !brahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

3. The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District 5. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 7. One CC to SRI P.SRI RA[/, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI SRIKAR JONNALAGADDA, Advocate [OPtJC] 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] \ To PS GJw ,: ,,1 r' .lli,*t.rl i*, ?Y HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 / I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.32594 AND 32604 of 20 $-i'ir'{[ O (J NS''I 1rt 't$5 r:1 .,, *i ,: n{ -:i trl.tt:,l. i t+tl : 'ii . iri t-I s.l I '*f ;q rn;,L:) ;i .i i{ t i I : F { I 3 I { I. ? ( I' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETI WITHOUT COSTS t t It t : t \ o ; Ttil.{ ,.. llI;t *, t,{ t,{ f l t i s * + i J 1 !..,; _ -:{iI. '1.. tJtI.. 'r- "'i*'' 3lf' iii*i*i TIONS . i,ii, i" , i ) t. I t a l I a. *I,sr 'i :i: j; i{.tt * t.: tr, it. l {'. 15, il.\,;.:n r.tr - Ii Ii" t.t:. .a'i -^ .{*, . t.-1, _ :tlf.q iif: