Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1189 (TS)

Chilkuri Ganga Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-10-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in issuing notice dated 10.07.2023, fixing the date for survey and demarcation of land in Sy.No.162, situated at Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing notice to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri G. Rejeshwar Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.Sriram, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-12 gts in Sy.No.162/Vuu1, situated at Donthanpally Village, Maharajpet Grampanchayat, shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.1195 of 2018, dated 07.02.2018, from Kunti Leelavathi. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-10 gts in Sy.No.162/Vuu1, situated at Donthanpally Village Maharajpet Grampanchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.1194 of 2018, dated 07.02.2018, from K.Bharath Veer. Petitioner No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-15 gts in Sy.No.162/Vuu1, situatedat Donthanpally Village, Maharajpet Grampanchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.1290 of 2017, dated 02.05.2017, from K.Bharath Veer. He further submitted that from the date of purchase, petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While the matter stood thus, neighboring land owner furnished with a notice dated 10.07.2023 vide file No.A3/1183/2022, stating that respondent No.2 is demarcating the land in Sy.No.162 on the application submitted by respondent No.4. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that no notice has been issued to petitioners before conducting survey and demarcation of lands in Sy.No.162. He further submitted that petitioners being the owners of lands in Sy.No.162, are entitled to notice and conducting survey and demarcation of lands in Sy.No.162 without notice to the petitioners is per se illegal and arbitrary. He also submitted that respondent No.2 issued notice only to two persons and also marked a copy to the Police, Mokila, for bandobasth, which itself shows mala fide intention in conducting survey and demarcation of lands without issuing notice to all the concerned owners of Sy.No.162. He also submitted that respondent No.2 issued notice only to two persons and also marked a copy to the Police, Mokila, for bandobasth, which itself shows mala fide intention in conducting survey and demarcation of lands without issuing notice to all the concerned owners of Sy.No.162. He further submitted that if the survey is allowed to be conducted without notice to the petitioners, it would result in irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners, therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition and direct the official respondents to conduct survey by duly giving notice to petitioners. 5. This Court vide Order dated 19.07.2023, granted interim stay of notice dated 10.07.2023. Respondent No.4 filed counter along with vacate stay petition. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that respondent No.4 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.162/U, Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘subject lands’), having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.5495 of 2017, dated 03.10.2017, from Kanderi Jagadesh and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The vendor of respondent No.4 purchased the said land from Pochamma, Bemamma, Rukamma, Begari Chinna Venkataiah, Begari Narasimhulu and Begari Kistaiah, who are legal heirs of B. Pochaiah through a registered sale deed bearing document No.11088 of 2005, dated 25.11.2005 and his name was recorded in revenue records and Patta Passbook bearing No.T05240080659 was also issued in his favour. He further submitted that total extent of land in Sy.No.162 is Acs.9-04 gts out of which Ac.1-10 gts is affected in road and Ac.1-30 gts was purchased by Kilari Sreemali and balance extent of Acs.6-04 gts stands in the name of Lagadapati Ashrith. He also submitted that claim of the petitioners is not true and petitioners name has not been reflected in the revenue records. He further submitted that petitioners are claiming title in respect of land in Sy.No.162/Vuu1, basing on the registered sale deed Nos. 1194 & 1195 of 2018 and 1290 of 2017, however, the law covered the above sale deeds, is affected in road, which is evident from Dharani Portal, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are interested and aggrieved parties is not correct. 7. 1194 & 1195 of 2018 and 1290 of 2017, however, the law covered the above sale deeds, is affected in road, which is evident from Dharani Portal, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are interested and aggrieved parties is not correct. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, had addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide Lr.No.D2/6514/2022, dated 21.01.2023, wherein it was specifically observed that the land to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.162 of Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal is covered by road, which is leading from Shankarpally to Hyderabad; that the said extent was claimed by Kunti Bayanand, Bharatveer & Gouthami and their names were recorded in the pahanies for the year 2019-2020 and also in Dharani portal, without any title and requested to delete their names for an extent of Ac.1-10 gts and record the same as road. He further submitted that in view of above observation, the names of vendors of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are deleted and the said land is marked as road and thus, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have no valid title in respect of land in Sy.No.162/Vuu1 at any point of time and thus, registered sale deeds are not valid, therefore, petitioners are neither interested nor necessary parities for the purpose of survey. He further submitted that petitioners have supressed the fact of pending suits between vendors of petitioners and vendor of respondent No.4 in O.S.No.5 of 2016, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, to which respondent No.4 was impleaded as party and another suit vide O.S.No.1315 of 2022, is also pending on the file of IX-Additioinal District Judge, Chevella, and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perusal of the record would disclose that respondent No.4 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.162/U, situated at Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District under registered sale deed No.5495 of 2017 dated 03.10.2017 from K. Jagadesh, who had purchased the said land under registered sale deed No.11088 of 2005 dated 25.11.2005, from legal heirs of B. Pochaiah, who is the protected tenant and was issued Certificate under Section 38 -E of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1950. The name of vendor of respondent No.4 is also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook has been issued and his name is also reflected in the Dharani portal. 9. The petitioners are claiming ownership and title in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-37 gts vide registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1194 and 1195 of 2018, dated 07.02.2018 and 1290 of 2017, dated 02.05.2017, from K. Leelavathi and K. Bharath Veer and K. Srisailam, respectively. 10. The District Collector in his proceedings dated 17.01.2023, specifically observed that land to an extent of Ac.1- 10 gts in Sy.No.162, has been affected in the road and therefore, the said extent ought to have been excluded, however the Tahsildar has included the said extent in the names of K. Bayanand, K. Bharath Veer and B.Gouthami; the District Collector further observed that the application filed for mutation in favour of K. Bayanand basing on registered document No.1290 of 2017, dated 03.05.2017, was rejected by the Tahsildar, Shankarpally vide memo No.B/946/2017, dated 01.06.2017, on the ground that the said extent of land was covered by road widening, however, the name of K. Bayanand is recorded in the pahani for the year 2018-19 in Sy.No.162/UU2 for an extent of Ac.0-02 gts, as well as pahani for the year 2019- 20, without any basis. The collector finally observed that an extent of Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.162 of Dontanpally Village was covered by road leading from Shankarpally to Hyderabad and the names of K. Bayanand, K. Bharath Veer and B. Gowthami have been recorded in the pahani for the year 2019-20 and also in Dharani portal without any title. Ultimately, the Collector requested CCLA that an extent of Ac.1-10 gts from K. Bharath Veer (Ac.1-06 gts), K. Bayanand (Ac.0-02 gts) and B.Gowthami (Ac.0-02 gts) be deleted and record the same as road to the said extent. 11. CCLA's vide Ref No.CMRO/1068/2023, dated 21.04.2023, informed the Collector that provision is available in Dharani portal in Collector's login and requested to take necessary action. Consequently, the entries in the Dharani Portal have been modified and an extent of Ac.1-10 gts is recorded as Pr road. 11. CCLA's vide Ref No.CMRO/1068/2023, dated 21.04.2023, informed the Collector that provision is available in Dharani portal in Collector's login and requested to take necessary action. Consequently, the entries in the Dharani Portal have been modified and an extent of Ac.1-10 gts is recorded as Pr road. It is also evident from the record that the said proceedings dated 17.01.2023 and subsequent correction of entries in the Dharani Portal have not been challenged by the petitioners and thus, there is no basis for petitioners to demand for notice the survey and demarcation to be conducted in respect of lands in Sy.No.162, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 12. It is also evident from the record that multiple suits are pending before the trial Court concerning rights of the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 in respect of subject lands and thus, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the pending civil cases. However, fact remains that names of the petitioners have been deleted in the revenue records in respect of subject lands and Pr-road is recorded in new records, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 13. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 fairly submitted that respondent No.4 has no objection for the presence of petitioners during the survey and demarcation of subject lands, however, the petitioners are neither entitled to notice nor can claim any advantage therefrom. 14. In view of above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to present during the survey and demarcation of subject lands, but the petitioners shall not claim any advantage of their presence during the survey and demarcation of the subject lands. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.