THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR v. The State of Telangana

l2.Nookala Sudhakar yadav, S/o Nookala Ramulu yadav, aged about 21 years 1o. lt tlo 2-i6t33tct 1, Sai Nasar, waOnapur, Seiilirs;;;;iiy"*;;; i;i" l3.Nookala Lokesh yadav, S/o. Nookala Ramulu yadav, aged about 24 vears Pl lt.ruo 2-s6t33tct1, Sai Nagar, n,iAnJpui,-S"ri-ri"ijrr'pJrv, riJr', d"dl; Dishict 14.Smt Lakshmi. W/o Late^ Srisailam, aged about 44 years R/o H.No. 1_53. Kumaribasti, t,4adhapur. Seritingampalti, nangi Reiai D"a "- 15. Yallannagari r-akshmi. w/o yaflannagari Ramesh D/o Late srisairam, aged about 39 years R/o H.No. 5-68, eeooa."mmaguoEm street, Jinnaram, veioii-" 16.Smt Renuka, W/o Siva Kumar D/o Late Srisailam, aged about 29 years R/o 1- 9-348, Hanuman Nagar, Rajendranagar, ni"gi Hed?y District 17.smt Revathi w/o M.Ashok Dfo Late srisairam, aged about 2r vears Rto H. No. 1 -e-348, Da tnha Basth i, na;eno ianisr,A;;#iL,ii,;Di#"i"'' "' '18. Kadari Lakshmi, W/o Kadari Mailesh Dio Nukara Mailaiah, aged about 49 -Nrt;"iriJi-niirr,rigiri, years RIo H No. 27_136/9/4, New Vidya NJgar, Hyderabad All the Petitioners represented by their G.p.A. Horder, c.N.chiranjeevi Reddy s/o c.N.chanlra Sekhar Reddv, ageJ ab"ri iir;;r.'nl"'Er'ii r'r..'?t+, Magna's Lake View Apartment,'kha"narei viitage,'seririrgamp;riv''lianiar, Ranga Reddy District ...A,PPELLANTS AND

1. The State of Tr;langana, represented by its princiDal Secretarv to - Ljovernment, F,(evenue-Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2. The District corecror, R{sa Redov biit.iiiion"gard xirlnvittage, ^ lgra[qpqlnam Mandat, Ranga Reddy oisirici- 3. The Tahsildar. Seritingampatiy frlanOjt, nangu R"aOy Oi.tri"t 4. TheAsst. Direcror, survei anii Lano n'ecoiollirngi neooy'oirtrict 5' M/s Rajeswari Farnrs & Eltates p'rt.Lto., Fiot ii,i. zE, rii"i r.rrgai,'iiyoeraoao, represented by D.Suresh Babu NO F .RESPONDENTS Petition under section i 5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppg.d of the peiitio;, in" iifn Court may t" pr"jrl? t" grnt interim stay of ail further proceedings pursuant-to the common oio"io.i"o. 19.11.2025 in W.p. No 32604 ot Z1ZS incluJing the Notice in Rc. No. 441233912024 dated. 28.1 1.202s, pending disposar of the w.A. No. of 2028. Counsel forthe Appeilant: SRt N. SREEDHAR REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent No.l to 4: SRt pOTTtcARt SRTDHAR REDD', SpL. cp REP. FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI p. SRI RAGHU RAM, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI P. SRI RAM The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD. **** THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT NO.1399 0F 2o.25, DATE: O5 .t2.2o.25l Bet'ween : Nukala Bikshapathi and 17 others Versus ... Appellants The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 4 others. ...Respondents Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel representing Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos.l to 4. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 19.11-2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32604 2 of 2025, filcd by the appellants herein for settir:g aside the proceedings ir-r Proc.No.A4 I 2339 I 2024, dated 2,.2.tO.2025, on the file of Lhe r-espondent No..4/the Assistant Dirccl.or, Survey and Land Flecords, Ranga Reddy District. The ap1>ellants/rvrit petitioners were aggrieved that the procr:eciings dated

22.10.2025 were issued by the respondent No.4 pr.oposing to conduct a survey and a dcmarcation of the leLncLs in Survev Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41 19, 4l I lO, 4L I L 1 and 4L / 12, admeasuring Acs.26.l4 guntas, situated at Khirnirmet village, Serilingampalil' Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, c>n Ir.9.lO.2O2S, without considering the objections/represen[atiorrs submitted by the rrvrit petitioners on 24.1O.2025.

2. w.P.it{o.32594 of 2025 r,r,as also filed for settirrg aside the very same proceedings dated 22.Lo.2o2s. Hence , w.p.No.32sg4 of 2025 and w.P.No.326o4 of 2o2s were hear-d togethcr and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned common order dated 19.1 1 .2o2s. The present writ Appeal challenges the impugned order insofar as it relates to w.P.No.32604 of 2025liled by the appe[ants/'*,r.it petitioners.

3. By the impugned common order dated 19 11 .2o2s, the learned Single Judge heard the appellants/writ ci:titioners as well as the respondent No.5 (also the respondent No.5 in the \ \ 3 Appeal) and disposed of both the writ petitions observing that although the Notice dated 22.10.202s had become infructuous, the State respondents were at liberty to issue a fresh notice to all the concerned parties after considering lhe objections raised by the writ petitioners, as per the procedure established by law, and the said procedure was directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible, without any further delay.

4. we do not tlnd any basis for the appellants to be aggrieved by the impugned order since the State respondents were only given liberty to conduct a survey by issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law and after considering the objections raised by the appellants.

5. we are informed that the fresh notice has been issued by the State respondents on 28.11 .2o2s scheduling a survey for tomorrow i.e., 06. L2.2025. 6- Strictly speaking, the fresh notice is not part of the cause of action in the present Appeal nor is it part of the papers in this Appeal. Hence, at best, the appellants would have to approach the court under the law based on the fresh cause of action arising from the Notice dated 28.11.2o2s. Since that Notice is 4 not before us, we do not wish to injunct the state respondents from condr-rcting the survey scheduled on 06.L2.2C25.

7. The court has also been taken through a cornmon order passed by another learned Single Judge on o6.lo.2o2s in w.P.Nos.482 and 519 of 2o2s filed bv rhe appellants; herein and the writ petitioners in w.p.No.32sg4 of 2o2s, respectively, challenging an earlier proceeding in proc.No.A,l I 2339 /2024 dated 19.12.2024. The said writ petitions *,err: clisposed ol. by, the learned Single Judge n ith a direction to the Deput},, Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, to consider the representation of the respondent No.5 dated 24.o9.2024 to demarcate the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in survey No.4L/L2 of Khanamet villag:, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the nrit petitioners and the respondent No.S and all interested parties or1 aotice. The Deputy Inspector of survey '*,as directed to p,sr; a speaking order by assigning reasons, if he was not inclined -o accept the request made by the respondent No.5. The Notice dated 22.Lo.2o25 was issued pursuant to the commr>n order dated

06.10.2025.

8. The learned Special Government preader appearing for the State-respondents submits that the State_respc,ndents wili a \ a- \ i i' l 5 consider the represen[ation made by the appellants on

24.10.2025, in the course of the day. We, however, do not find any basis to injunct the State respondents from conducting the survey scheduled for 06. 12.2025 nor any reason ro interfere with the impugned order dated 19.11 .2o2s. The directions given in the impugned order are innocuous and do not prejudicially affect the appellants/writ petitioners.

9. W.A.No.1399 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismisseci. It is made clear that if the State respondents have already disposed of the representation of the appellants dated 24.ro.2025, as submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, the 'decision such representation shall be communicated to the appellants in the course of the day and before [he inspection is conducled. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUS HAMBA DEPUry GISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRt N SB.E_EDHAR REDDy, Advocate IOpUCJ ?. 9n" cc to sRr-l!II_E4M; A;;;;i"'r6iijdi''" , 3' 4' to GP FoR REVEi'iut, Hil; b;r;Ydr the State or rerangana. to ADVoCATE GENERAL, Hish court for the State of relangana ff,rr?"t Id?r?"t 5. Two CD Copies BN i ,l 'i i il. il, HIGH COURT DATED:05/1 212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1399 of 2025 't' I HE TJ rii O B 5 [if, ?ff5 * .i' -- -l :l\ DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ^ .(