SRI v. ARAVIND REP., FOR Ms vs ROOPA Counsel forthe

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, secreTariai euiioings, Hyodra6aa- s66io1. The Commissioner and Director, Survey Setflement and Land Records, Telangana State, Survey Bhavah, Narayanaguda-, ftyOeraOaO - SOOO2ij. 3. The Joint collector, rntegfated District office comprex, Anthaipaily, Medchar- Malkajgiri District - S00 078.

4. The Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Kukatpally, Hyderabad _ SOOOZ2. 5 llg-R9_Slolal OggufV Director, Surv-ey and Land Records, Survey Bhavan, 6. The Assistant Director/lnspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, t\arayanaguoa, Hyderabad _ 500029. blq g tqt" D i st rict of f ice C ci m p iex, n ntr a i pir V, rvied cntri_ H,tiriiairi i ri6 Giii.t _ 500078.

7. Greate_r Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented bv it,s Deoutu 9.9Tli.:jolSr, Kukatpaily Circte No.24, Jdnatha Cor6ny, Xer cor<J-ny,' Moosapet, Hyderabad -500 072. B. Kasani Shankar, S/o.Late K.Balraj, Aged about 52 years. Occuoation. B.usiness, Rt/o. H. No.2-1 -23i3 8, I naira-Nagar, Shanisiguda, kutiatpiitv, Hyderabad - 500 O72. , *a: I Jooioeta Bhi rskar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 52 years O'lcupation Buiiness, R, o. H No.2-1 -36/4, Shamsiguda, Near Hanuman I enlple' Kukatpally IVandal, Hyderabad - 500 072.

10.Kodadi Hantrmantha Rao, S/o. Late K.Narsing Rao, Ag Occupation. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-3-27'1 , Venkata R Hyderabad - 500072. ed about 77 years, ao Nagar, KukatPallY,

11. Kodadi Nare nder Rao @ Nagarai, S/o. K.Hanumantha Rao, Agerd.about 45 ,.Jrs. Occu ration Busiiess,-Rio. Plot No.43, Vaishanavi Nagar Near Frakash Nartar, l(ukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072.

12. K.Raieswar lao. S/o. Late K.Rama Rao, Aged about 48 years )ccupation' Aoriculture, Vo tl.No.4-1 5, Singayapalli Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga R6ddy Distri:t - 5,00072.

13.K.Narsing Rao, Si/o. K.Hanumantha Ra.o,, Aged-about 53 years,. Ocgupation' - e'usineis] R o.ir.No.+-13, Singayapalli Village, Shamirpet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500072.

14. Jinka Kumar', S/c. Ramaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ-upation llu.siness, nyo.U.t to.O- i -Zz{o-ql, above-Sri Jagadamba Fancy Store, Barrsilalpet, Secunderab ad. '1 5. Munuoula R ama Reddv, S/o. Gall Reddy, aged about 45 years Occupation' Busin6ss, R'o.2-1 -407, Yellammabanda, Near Community Hall Kukatpally' Hyderabad 5O0 O72. '16.Nelaoati Ve tkaterswar Rao, S/o. Paidaiah, aged about 50 years Occupation' Business, R'o.2-23-13212, NMT Satavahana Nagar, Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072.

17. Muraboina t'Ialiikarjun, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 46 years, Occupation Business, R/o.2-1-Dl633, Dattatreya Colony, Yellammabanda, l'(ukatpally' Hyderabad 500 072. lB.Vaddula Shtnkar, S/o.Chandraiah' aged about 52 years- Occupation . --- - guiiness, Rto.2-1-23t7,lndira Nagar near HMT Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 .

19. Dodla Soun Jhanya, W/o.Venkatesh Goud (Corporator), aged about 54 years' Occuoation Houie maker, No.4-32-411116, Kamala Prasanna Nagar Colony, Kukatoallv. lvde,rabad - 5OO 072, also at Villa No.35, Shilpa Brrrndavanam, Snamlhi{u, td Village, Kukatpally Municipality, Hyderabad - 500072. 20. K.Kistamma, W/(). Venkatesh Goud (Corporator), Aged about 83 years, Occuoation Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.2-1-23138, Sai Prasanth Naelar, Shanishigur la, K ukatpally, Hyderabad - 50007 2. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition un<ler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstetnces stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pl,:ased to direct the Sixth Respondent Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medchal- lr/alkajgiri District, to conduct survey and demarcate same and fix the boundaries of the of lands in Siun'ery Nos.45 and 46 of Shamsiguda village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malakajgiri District, by suspending the impugned lt'(emo bearing No.A2l732l2Ol 8, dated 30.09.2019 issued by the sixth respondent and the Order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P.No.1319 of 2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Gounsel for the Appellants: SRI D.V. SITHARAM MURTHY REP., FOR SRI. BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM REP.,FOR GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI G. MADHUSUDAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8&9: SRI V. ARAVIND REP., FOR Ms V. ROOPA Counsel forthe Respondent No.14: SRI SANKALP PISSAY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.225 of2025 JUDGMENT: (]er iLLe Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri D.\.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Botla Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants; Slr NI'rralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Go rrernment Pleacler for J?t vetrue, for respondent Nos. 1 to 6; Sri \'.Aravind, learned couns e1 t'epresenting Ms.V.Roopa, learned corrnsel for respondent Ncs.B and 9; and Sri Sankalp Pissay, learnerl counsel for respondent Nc,.14.

2. With the colrsent, frnallY heard.

3. This intra Ocurt appeal assails the impugned ord':r passed in W.P.No.131) ol 2024 datedO4.O9.2024. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

4. The adm itte<1 facts between the parties are that the appellant No.1 (writ pe.itio::rer No.1) initially filed W.P.No.29 143 of 2018 I 2 which was decided on 20.0g.2018. The said brief order reads thus:- "The present writ petition came to be filed seeking to _ declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 26.4.2019, submitted by the petitioner to survey the larrd admeasuring Ac.2.34 gts situated at 'I T: 4I_:f Shamshiguda Viilage, Kuka"tpalty Mandal, Medchal District, as illegal and arbitrary. Whin the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government pleader for Revenue would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the 2"d respondent to conduct the survey of the subject land of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2,d respondent to deal with the application/ representation dated 26.4.20^18 of the petitioner and conduct the survey of the l^ard of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.34 gts situated at Shamshiguda Village, Kukatlpally Mandal, Pf Tq Medchal District, at the earliest, preferably within'a period of two months from today, by informing the date and time of survey to the petitioner. 4I_ of . With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WP.M.Ps if any pending shall stand closed.,,

5. Undisputedly, the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was unsuccessfully challenged before a Division Bench in W.A.No.523 of 2079. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: - 'The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 in. the present writ appeal) stating that his representation ,^ \ -- / J -if d,ated. 26 04.ilo 18 for survey of the land was trot reing considere 1 b.'' 15. revenue authorities' When the mattel was i;k;; tp ftir hearing, a prayer wa1 mlde to direcr' the .""p".iJ,,a Nc 2 in ttt. *iit petition / Assistant Directcr to " land which is the subject matter of the writ ,.tr:dingly, a direction was issued to deal rvilh the ""ri"V ;;;i#. I"f ..""trt rti. t, aat"ed 26.04 2olg and to conduct thc s rrvev *ithi.r,,terocloftwomonthsTheaforesaidperiodis'also .""..- ffrr p-esent writ appeal has been. filed b1 the appellant; s''trting that they ire also having interest i n the ;;;;.;q, n t1,res[on, the writ petitioner.was not having anv lgit ,i.-"p"ct of the property and--the impugned order was pissed br:hirxl the back of the appellants' lhe considered opinion of this Court, the [e arned Jg., 1r." not commented upon the title-in respect of rt1, in question and has simply directed for a survey In Single Jt the propt to be con Cu<:l.ed in the matter. Itr the tight of the aforesaid, it is made clear thrrt the .o.,iucted in the matter will not affect the rights of "r-.y: =,, ifr. p".ti:s and the learned Single Judge has not decidtrd any iitl"'.li"p o,. n respect of the writ petitioner and the p:esent 'l'he wiit petitioner and the present appcllants "pp.ff"".s. =ilfl t. fre,: to proce-ed ahead, in accordance with law' in .."p.., r f ritle and other rights in respect of the prop"rty in question Wjth I l]e aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shal) stand closed."

6. Learnec Senior Counsei for the appellants subnrits that a conjoint reerc ing of both the aJoresaid orders makes it clear that there exists a Jrositive direction to conduct the sulvey The respondent l,lo.5, in turn, passed the order dated :]0'O9'2019 which becarr e sr-rbject matter of challenge before the writ court. 4 The writ court opined that in view of the pendency of O.S.No.114 of 2OI9 and considering the nature of the matter, the appellants may file an application under order XXVI Rure 9 of the code of Civil Procedure, 19O8, in O.S.No.i 14 of 2Ol9: Apart from this, on the alleged suppression of fact regarding O.S.No. 714 of 2019 also, interference was declined. CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS:- 7 . Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the categorical directions contained in the previous round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.29l43 of 2018 and W.A.No.523 of 2019, it was no more open for the ofhcial respondents to not to conduct the survey. The learned Single Judge although has given a passing reference to these previous orders, did not deal with the same in extenso to distinguish the same. Withstanding those directions, the official respondents were required to conduct survey of the land which was the subject matter of W.p.No.29143 of 2O 18.

8. Furthermore, there is no suppression of fact by the appellants because along with the writ petition, the relevant 5 documents were frlod relating to the aJoresaid original Su:t and' in the additional 'narr:ria] papers/ affidavit' averments were rnade' CONTENTION OF THE RESPOND ENTS:. g. Learne<l cortnsel for the respondents submit that the appellants a:'e seeking survey for a large piece of land u'hich was round of litillation 1n not the sub. ecl matter of previous W.P.No.29143 of 2lOlB.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No 14 placed relia:rce on the order dated 11,.Ot'-2023 passed in C'C'No'1508 of 201!:)' wherein I s zis the petitioner and the Court came tc hold that thr: order dated 30.09 '2079, to case of contempt appellant N cr while passtng was made ou' .

11. Learnec Cicvernment Pleader for respondent Nos'1 to 6 and learned coutrsel tbr respondent Nos.8 and 9 supported the impugned orrler ,

12. The le;rned counsel for the parties have con fined their arguments t I th e extent indicated above and no oth er point is pressed + 1 I l 6

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. F.INDINGS:-

14. Admittedly, the present litigation is not the first round of litigation. As evident from the reproduction of the directions issued in the previous round of litigation by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench, it is clear that certain directions have been issued. I 5. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned Single Judge. We find substantiat force in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that apart from a passing reference to the previous round of litigation, no discussion is there as to why the directions contained in the previous orders should not be implemented in letter and spirit. It was obligatory on the part of the learned Single Judge to examine the order impugned before him by taking into account the directions issued in the previous round of litigation. The question of suppression of fact also needs to be reexamined in the light of the documents filed pith the writ petition and material papers. '- I dr' '.: 7

16. So far th: argument of the learned counsel for resipondent No.14 that irL [he contempt petition the Court observed that no contempt is mrLde rut in passing the order is concerned' suffice it to say that in [urttrerance of the previous round of litiglttion' the order dated :O.O!).2O19 was passed' This is trite that if in furtheralce of a cirurt order, an order is passed as a cons;eqllence' ordinarily the correctness of such order cannot be the subject matter of the :on1.empt case' The Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction i:, ordinarily not obliged to examine thc legality' validity, prop -iet1 and correctness of the said order' In this backdrop, th') c'r'der Passed in C.C.No.15O8 of 201!' will not preclude the app'ellants to challenge the order befort: the writ Court, more s o, rvhen the learned Single Jud'ge has not dismissed the writ Petiti:n f'lr that reason L7. In vievr of the foregoing discussion and particularly for the reason tha'L thtr iearned Single Judge has not considered the orders passe d .tr the previous round of litigation' u'e deem it proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judgt in W.P'No'1319 of 2024 dated 04.09.2024 and reqrrest the l:arrLed Single Judge to rehea-r the parties and pass a , I I I 8 ::: fresh order. It will be open ro the parties to raise all possibte grounds in the fresh round of hearing.

18. With the above direction, the writ appeat is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SAILESHI DEPUWREGISTRA SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, S Hyderabad- 500 063. ' retariat Buildings,

2. The Commissioner and Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records. Te Ia n g a na State, S u rve y a n a vi h, r,l ffi ,-,r r'ii rli i, ii vo ;r, o, i j's"o"oolU. 3. The, Joint Collector, lntegrated District Office Complex, Anthaipally, Medchal_ 4. The Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Kukatpally, Hyderabad _ SOO 072. 5. The Reoional Deoutv Director Malkajgiri District - 500 d'78. -" -' - rrev vvrrrvrr .S^urvey and Land Records, Survey Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hydi:rabad _ 50OO2d.'

6. The Assislant Director/lnspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records. rntesrate District orfice ccimpiex,lntnaiplirri, rviJd#"i-tur;rrrisii[ii:i;i"t _ 500078.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, No.24, .ranarna'Coioi,y, [cib.rlii,r; ia;o!ide"t,Iio8raoao fdjX,ri,,, "'r"te

8. One CC to SRt. BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Advocate tOpUCl 9. One CCto SRt G. MADHUSUDAN REDDYSC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 10.One CC to Ms V. ROOpA Advocate [OeUC] 11.One CC to SRt SANKALP ptSSAyAivoc"tl 12.fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. tOpUCt IOUTJ

13.The section officer. writ (DB) section, High court for the state of rerangana, Hyderabad. 14 The Section officer. posting section, High court for the state of rerangana, Hyderabad.

15.Two CD Cooies KKS LS 1k HIGH COUFIT DATED:241Ct312025 .<.. !/. 1 fi t,t i 2[25 l a. :1' lJ (Y .l 'a \,. _: 'ii. JUDGMEN''I' WA.No.225 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT {3OSTS {n- @ rTff;,: