1. lrfan Bin Ali v. 1. The state of Telangana

5. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Urban, Dist. Karimnagar 6. Muslim Education Society, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar, Rep. by its President Sri Mohammad Shanawaz S/o.Late Mohammad Nawab, Age 36 yeais, Occ. Business, Office at D/No.7-2-326, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the notice bearing file No.A3/259t2O25. Daled 23-10-2025 issued by Respondent No.S and trying to conduct survey of land bearing Sy.No.1011 situated at Kashmeergadda of Karimnagar despite the dismissal of lA No.638 ol 2O23 in OS No.604 ot 2023 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar as being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the notice bearing file No.A3/25912025, Dated 23-10-2025 issued by R€spondent No.S with a direction to not to conduct any survey of land bearing Sy.No.101'l situated at Kashmeergadda of Karimnagar as the matter is sub judice in OS No.604 of 2023 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and to not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over land bearing Sy.No.1076 and 1077 to an extent of Ac.1-3'l Gts, situated at Kashmeergadda of Karimnagar Town. lA NO: 1 OF 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 stay atl further proceedings pursuant to the notice bearing file No.A3/25912025' Dated 23-10-2025 issued by Respondent No.5 pending digposal of the above writ petition. OF Muslim Education Society, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar, [90' OV it1e1e1iA91!fri MonjmmaO Shanawaz STo.Late Mohahmad Nawab, 4ge s0 yggJsr .qcc uuslness' onice ii OlNo.z-2-326, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District' PETITIONERS D 1 . lrfan Bin Ali, S/o.late Ali Bin Awaz, aged about 39 .years' 99t' biili""Ii,nliiii.No.7-5-ies, IBA Garden Fuiction Hall, Kashmeersadda' Karimnagar Town and District. Karimnagar Town and District.

2. Rizwan Bin Ali, S/o.Late Ali Bin Awaz, Aged about .37 .years' Occ' - Buiiness,R/o.H.No.7-3_299, IBA Garden Function Hall, Kashmeergaooa, 3 Arshad Bin Ali @ Chotu, S/o.Late Ali Bin Awaz, Aged apoq! 3! years, Occ' Business. R/o.H:No.7_3-289, IBA Garden Function Hall, Kasnmeergaooa, Karimnagar Town and District. ' 4.AbdullahBinAli,S/o.AliBinAwaz,Age43years,occ'Business.R/o.H.No.7. 3-28ii,-ibA- caiben runiiion nati, Kashm6ergadda, Karimnagar Town and District.

5. lmran Bin Ali, S/o.late Ali Bin Awaz, Age--41. years,.Qcc..S99!1991, R/o.H.No.7-3-289, IBA Garden Function Hall, Kashmeergadda' Kaflmnagar Town and District. ouse Hot'd, R/o.H.No.7-3-143, Khshmirgadda, Karimnagar'

6. Qamar Sultana, Wo.Khaja Moinuddin Salee-m.(D/o'Late Ali Bin Awaz)' Age " dil;r", o;; -fr 7. F ahat Sultana, Wo.Syed Afzal @ chand. Pasha (D/o'Late Alin Bin Awaz)' ' ;G'?f;;;;,' o;. l$;.""hotoiiro.siddipet viliase, Mandal of siddipet 8. Rafat Sultana, Wo.Mohd. Nazeer (D/o.Late Ali Bin.Awa-z),.Age 50 Y99t": O-1"; House hold, R/o.Godamgadda, Mominpura locality, Kanmnagar I own ano District. District.

9. Anium Sultana, wo.Shaik chand D/o.Late Ali Bin Awaz, Age 46 years, occ. - Ho'uaa hoH, R/b.7-3-289, Mankammathota, Karimnagar' ... RESPONDENTS'PETTTIONERS

10. The State of Telangana, Rep. its Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretariat HYderabad. 1 1.The District Collector, Karimnagar, Dist. Karimnagar' 12.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, Dist' Karimnagar' 13.The Deputy lnspector of Survey/HQ, Office of Survey and Land Records' Karimnagar, Dist. Karimnagar.

14. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Urban, Dist. Karimnagar ...RESPONDENTS' RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 24-11-2025 passed in W.P.No.35663 of 2025 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.lto4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE fOT GP FOR REVENUE SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.S : SRI VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER 5 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELIINGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL No.35663 ol 2O2S Dated :22.12.2O25 Between: Irfan Bin Ali and others. And ... Petitioners. The State ofTelangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ... Respondents. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : "...to declare the notice bearing frle No.A3/25912025, dated' 23-lO-2O25 issued by respondent No.S and trying to conduct survey of land bearing Sy.No. 1O11 situated at Kashmeergadda of Karimnagar despite the dismissal of. IA No.638 of 2023 in OS No.604 of 2Q23 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil JPdge, Karimnagar as being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 ar:d. 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the notice bearing file No.A3l25912025, dated 23-10-2025 issued by respondent No.S with a direction to not to conduct any survey of land bearing Sy.No. 1011 situated at Karimnagar as the matter is subjudice in OS No.604 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar ald to not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over land bearing Sy.No.1076 and. LO77 to an extent of Ac. 1-31 Gts, situated at Kashmeergadda of Karimnagar Town....." n

2. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy and Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the resPondent No.6.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the joint owners and possessors of land bearing Sy.Nos. 1076 and 1O77, admeasuring Ac.l-31 guntas, situated at Kashmeergadda Village, Karimnagar Town. The property originally belonged to their ancestor, late AIi Bin Awaz and upon his demise devolved upon the petitioners. The land was lawfully partitioned under a registered Partition Deed No.7l8l of 2Oll on the tile of the Sub- Registrar, Karimnagar. The unoflicial respondent falsely claims ownership over land bearing Sy.No. lOl 1, admeasuring Ac.O- 18 guntas, which Iies to the west of the petitioners' Iand. The unoffrcial respondent has no right, title or interest in Sy.Nos.1076 and 1077 and has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the petitioners' possession. A 5 suit filed by the unoflicial respondent in O.S. No.6O4 of 2023 for perpetual -injunction resulted in an ex-parte order, which was subsequenfly vacated. The petitioners' land has been surveyed and demarcated on multiple occasions i.e. firstly in the year 1997, again in 2Ol8 by the Mandal Surveyor through panchanama and frnally on 14- Page 3 of7 LL-2O24 by the Deputy Inspector of Sur-vey, whose report was submitted to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. All surveys consistently confirmed the boundaries of Sy.Nos.1076 and' LO77. The unofficial respondent sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for fresh measurement and boundary fixation in I.A.No.638 of 2023 in O.S. No.6O4 of 2023- The said application was dismissed on 23-09-2024, holding that the issue must be decided after full trial. The order has attained hnality. Despite the above, the unofficial respondent, by exerting extraneous influence, ind.uced respondent No.4 to repeatedly issue notices proposing fresh surveys. Earlier notices were withdrawn upon production of prior survey reports. However, respondent No.4 continues to issue fresh notices without jurisdiction, even though the dispute is sub judice and survey relief has already been declined by the civil Court. The respondent No.4 is acting' arbitrarily and in excess of authorit5r to benefit the unofficial respondent, in disregard of binding judicial ord.ers and completed statutory surveys. No further survey is warranted or permissible in law. a In the absence of any eflicacious alternative remedy, the petitioners are constrain:l ,o invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions to restrain the respondents from conducting any further survey or demarcation of land bearing Sy.Nos.1O11, 1076 and. LO77 Page 4 of7

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/unoffi cial respondent, reiterating the counter averments, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for deliberate suppression of material facts and abuse of process. The petitioners concealed that the Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar, by speaking order No.G 1 / 595/TPS-V/M CK / 2024 dated, 29 -OS-2O24, declared their constructions in Sy.No.lOll as unauthorized encroachments and that the Municipal Corporation partially demolished the same on O4-OZ- 2024 and restored possession to the 6th respondent. They also falsely pleaded that survey is barred due to pendency of O.S. No.604 of 2023, suppressing that the Civil Court dismissed I.A. No.63g of 2023 on 23_ O9-2O24, thereby leaving statutory revenue survey as the only lawful mode of demarcation. The 6e respondent is the absolute owner of Ac.O_ 18 guntas in Sy.No.loll under a consent decree dated O5-O2-19g7 in, O.S. No.877 of 1986 and has been in continuous possession, whereas the petitioners are using their ownershif of adjacent Sy.Nos. lO26 and 1077 as a pretext to encroach into Sy.No. l0ll. Earlier surveys relied upon by the petitioners were unilateral and unrelated to the disputed a common boundar5r, necessitating a fresh joint survey under Sections 6 and 10 ofthe Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, pursuant to valid F-Line applications. There is no injunction restraining the Revenue Authorities from conducting the survey, and repeated interference by the petitioners demonstrates a clear attempt to Page 5 of7 perpetuate illegal occupation and obstruct lawful discharge of statutory duties.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposing the present writ petition, vehemently contended that the writ petition is rnisconceived and devoid of merit. It is admitted that the impugned survey notices were issued pursuant to an application made by the 6ft respondent, however, it is contended that since the subject land is situated within an urbanized municipal area, the 6ft respondent ought to have approached the competent authority for demarcation through a licensed municipal surveyor, as per the applicable municipal and revenue practices, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the revenue sun/ey authorities. It is further submitted that the trial Court, while dismissing the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, had rejected the prayer for measurement and the 6e respondent failed to challenge the said order by way of appbal or revision, allowing it to attain finality. In the absence of such challenge, the 6th respond.ent cannot indirectly seek the same a relief through revenue machinery. The learned AGP would therefore submit that the present writ proceedings are founded on a misconception of law and facts and that the official respondents have merely acted in the routine discharge of their statutory d.uties without Page 6 of7 exceeding jurisdiction or violating any legal mandate, warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6- This Court, having considered the rival submissions, observes that the parties to the writ petition are already contesting their respective rights and claims before the Civil Court in o.S. No.604 of 2023 and that any grievances relating to suryey, demarcation or boundaries ought to be agitated by filing appropriate applications or appeals in that proceeding. The Court further finds that the 6th respondent's approach to the offrcial authorities for conducting the survey and the issuance of the impugned notice under File No.A3/259/2o25 dated 23-lo-2o25, was irregular and cannot be sustained. Since the property in question is qn urbanized propertJr, the official respondents have no role or authority to intervene in the demarcation of the land. Consequently, the impugned notice is hereby set aside. The court, however, grants liberty to the parties to pursue their remedies in accordance with law and further directs that in the event of serious objections regarding boundar5r demarcation, the parties a may approach a licensed surveyor or other competent authority to resolve the- matter in a lawful manner-

7. with the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs. ,'/ /. Page7 of7

8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY" To, 1 The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad. SD/.C. DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Telangana State,

2. The District Collector, Karimnagar, Dist. Karimnagar. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, Dist. Karimnagar. 4. The Deputy lnspector of Survey/HQ, Office of Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar, Dist. Karimnagar.

5. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Urban, Dist. Karimnagar 6. One CC to SRI KONDADIAJAY KUMAR, Advocate. IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUrI 8. Two CD Copies. BSK a HIGH COURT DATED:22t1212025 ( I I I I I I I ORDER WP.No.35663 of 2025 I u II o G c F s 3 s E WRIT PETITION a