Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1562 (TS)

Maddhi Divakar Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-11-19

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V. VENUGOPAL, J. These writ petitions are filed seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring and setting aside the proceedings in Proc.No. A4/2339/2024 dated 22.10.2025 on the file of the 4th Respondent, proposing to conduct survey and demarcation of lands in Sy. Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9, 41/10, 41/11 and 41/12 admeasuring Ac.26.14 guntas situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 29.10.2025 without considering the objections/ representation made by petitioners on 24.10.2025, as illegal, 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 5 th Respondent for conducting survey of the above lands…” 2. Since the impugned notice No.A4/2339/2024, dated 22.10.2025, which is under challenge before this Court is one 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.1 to 4, Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel representing Sri P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. Srikar Jonnalagadda, learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7. Perused the record. 4. Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that under the pretext of conducting survey pertaining to survey number No.41, situated at Khanmet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, an attempt has been made by the official respondents at the behest of unofficial respondents on their application to conduct survey and to encroach upon the land to an extent of 3367 Sq. yds out of 7200 Sq. yds falling in Sy No.41/12/A which belongs to the petitioners, who are the adjacent land owners. Accordingly, based upon such apprehension, these writ petitions have been filed. 5. He further contended that on the earlier occasion, the location sketch of Khanamet village was conducted. It has not been challenged either by petitioners or the unofficial respondents. Accordingly in the presence of Tahsildar of Serilingampally Mandal with the assistance of Deputy Inspector of Survey, HMDA and Mandal Surveyor, Serilingampally Mandal, survey numbers have already been decided and demarcated. 5. He further contended that on the earlier occasion, the location sketch of Khanamet village was conducted. It has not been challenged either by petitioners or the unofficial respondents. Accordingly in the presence of Tahsildar of Serilingampally Mandal with the assistance of Deputy Inspector of Survey, HMDA and Mandal Surveyor, 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 24.10.2025, which are extracted hereunder:- “The undersigned are in receipt of your Notice cited under reference seeking to conduct survey of the subject lands on 29.10.2025, on the applications dated 19.9.2024 and 22.10.2025 filed by M/s Rajeshwari Farms and Estates Pvt. Limited represented by D.Suresh Babu. In this regard we submit that we are the owners and possessors of land in Sy.No. 41/11/A and 41/12/A situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (within the limits of GHMC) having purchased the same through Regd. Sale Deeds. Earlier when a notice was issued for surveying the subject lands, we have approached the Hon'ble High 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 only meant for measurement of agricultural lands whereas 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. 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 law the survey is sought to be conducted on 29.10.2025, as intimated vide your notice dated 22.10.2025. Unless the same is explained, you cannot proceed with the survey as stated in the notice dated 22.10.2025. In the light of the above, you are requested to desist from conducting survey on 29.10.2025, as proposed by you vide your notice dated 22.10.2025.” 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 writ petition in WP.Nos.482 and 519 of 2025, where this Court has passed the common order on 06.10.2025, which is extracted hereunder:- “In the light of the said submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, to consider the representation dated 24.09.2024 submitted by respondent No.5 with a request to conduct survey, demarcate the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 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 affording them an opportunity. If the Deputy Inspector of Survey is not inclined to accept the request made by respondent No.5, he shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of forty-five (45) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 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 would submit that there is a possibility that if the survey has been conducted in Sy.No.41/12, where the petitioners land is situated in Sy.No.41/12/A, the survey may over lap upon the petitioners property and there is a threat of dispossession from the said land under the pretext of survey. Accordingly, he would seek to pass appropriate orders. 8. He would submit that there is a possibility that if the survey has been conducted in Sy.No.41/12, where the petitioners land is situated in Sy.No.41/12/A, the survey may over lap upon the petitioners property and there is a threat of dispossession from the said land under the pretext of survey. Accordingly, he would seek to pass appropriate orders. 8. 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 was 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 22.01.2022 vide registered Doc.No.4691/2022 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Serilingampally and also a rectification deed dated 22.04.2024 which is also registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy District vide Doc No.7967/2024, dated 22.04.2024. 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 been holding title legally, made an application for 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 would take no objection to consider the objections made by the petitioners herein, during course of survey. In 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 official respondents vide notice No.A4/2339/2024, dated 22.10.2025. 9. By filing implead petition vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.32594 of 2025, Mr. Srikar Jonnalagadda, learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7 would seek to issue notice to the proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7 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 official respondents. 10. Learned senior counsel representing respondent No.5 takes no objection. 11. 10. Learned senior counsel representing respondent No.5 takes no objection. 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 in 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, 41/9, 41/10, 41/11 and 41/12 admeasuring 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 of judiciary time apart from the administrative time of the official respondents. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned senior counsel for respondent No.5, learned Special 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 deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to conduct survey by issuing fresh notice as the notice No.A4/2339/2024, dated 22.10.2025, 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 all 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 petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.