Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 649 (TS)

Kandala Ranga Reddy v. Baddam Anuradha

2025-05-07

J.SREENIVAS RAO, SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Surepalli Nanda, J.) Heard Sri Katika Ravindar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent No.6. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 2. The appellants in the present Writ Appeal are respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.No.19428 of 2024 and the present Writ Appeal is preferred seeking prayer as under:- “to set-aside the impugned order passed by the learned single judge Justice Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy in WP.No.19428/ 2024, dated 20.02.2025, and to pass any such other order….” 3. The said Writ Petition No.19428 of 2024 had been filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the present Writ Appeal seeking prayer as under:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the impugned action of the 3 rd Respondent in not visiting the scene of offence despite registering the Crime No. 467/2024 and Crime No. 552/2024 against Respondents 5 to 7 and others who are threatening to cause harm and eliminate the Petitioners and their men and obstructing from fixing the boundary pillars and fencing wire along the boundary line on four sides of their land strictly according to the boundaries fixed by the Mandal surveyor functioning under Respondent No.4 without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the 3 rd Respondent to visit the scene of offence as stated in the Crime No. 467/2024 and Crime No. 552/2024 on his file and protect the Petitioners from the hands of Respondents 5 to 7 and others and grant…” 4. The Writ Petition No.19428 of 2024 was disposed of finally vide its order dated 20.02.2025 and the relevant portion of the said order in particular para Nos.6 and 7 are extracted hereunder: “6. On perusal of the survey report, it appears that notice dated 24.04.2024 has been issued to all the interested persons including respondents No.5 to 8 and there is no denial that the survey report has not been challenged by the respondents No.5 to 8. 7. On perusal of the survey report, it appears that notice dated 24.04.2024 has been issued to all the interested persons including respondents No.5 to 8 and there is no denial that the survey report has not been challenged by the respondents No.5 to 8. 7. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to place a requisition before respondent No.3 for grant of Police aid to fix boundaries as per survey report. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear respondents No.5 to 8 are always at liberty to agitate the survey and consequential proceedings including demarcation/fixing of boundaries in O.S. No.506 of 2024 and O.S. No.568 of 2024 before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. DISCUSSION:- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The appellants in the present Writ Appeal were not put on prior notice and the alleged survey of the subject lands conducted was behind the back of the appellants without the appellants participating in the said survey and therefore the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Appeal. ii) This Court in its order, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024 went wrong in directing respondent No.4 to place requisition before respondent No.3 for grant of police aid to fix boundaries as per survey report, without taking into consideration, the pendency of civil suits between the parties, and the fact that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. iii) Based on the false and fabricated survey report, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein are trying to dispossesses the appellants from the subject lands, which had been in their possession for the last five decades and are further trying to change the boundaries as well as the nature of land, which is not permissible. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed for. 6. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed for. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 on the other hand mainly puts-forth the follow ing submissions:- i) The order impugned, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P. No. 19428 of 2024, warrants no interference in the present Writ Appeal. ii) The order, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024 had already worked out on its own and therefore, the present Writ Appeal has become infructuous. iii) Since the appellants herein already preferred an appeal, dated 05.05.2025 and also represented through representations, dated 28.04.2025 & 02.05.2025 addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Office, Ibrahimpatnam Division and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District seeking setting-aside of the report issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal, on the ground that no prior notices had been issued to the appellants and the adjacent land owners and further requested to conduct resurvey of the subject lands situated in Sy.No.89 of Koheda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Division, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the remedy of the appellants lies elsewhere. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 sought for dismissal of the present Writ Appeal. CONCLUSION:- 7. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the appeal, dated 05.05.2025, (marked as material document Ex:P2 by the appellants herein in support of the present Writ Appeal) had been preferred by the appellants herein aggrieved against the survey report issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal to the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Office, Ibrahimpatnam Division and Mandal, Rangareddy District, seeking setting-aside of the survey report issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal and further, requesting conduct of resurvey of subject lands in Survey No.89 of Koheda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Division, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Rangareddy District having been acknowledged by the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Division and Mandal, Rangareddy District on 05.05.2025 itself and therefore, at this stage, this Court opines that the order impugned, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024 had already worked out on its ow n and the same warrants no interference. 8. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Writ Appeal could be disposed of directing the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Office, I brahimpatnam Division, and Mandal, Rangareddy District to dispose of the appeal, dated 05.05.2025 preferred by the appellants herein, duly considering the appellants’ earlier representations, dated 28.05.2025 & 02.05.2025. 9. This Court opines that the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants cannot be considered by this Court for two reasons, firstly, the said relief is beyond the scope of the present Writ Appeal, since the said relief had not been pleaded by the appellants in their pleadings in the present Writ Appeal, and secondly, in view of the fact as borne on record that the Deputy I nspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Office, Ibrahimpatnam Division and Mandal, Rangareddy District had not been impleaded as party respondents either in W.P.No.19428 of 2024, filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the present Writ Appeal, nor had been impleaded in the present Writ Appeal seeking leave of this Court by the appellants herein i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.No.19428 of 2024. 10. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6. c) The impugned order, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024(referred to and extracted above) d) The fact that the order, dated 20.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024 had w orked out on its ow n. e) The order impugned, dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.19428 of 2024, warrants no interference at this stage since, it is a fact as borne on record that the appellants had already preferred an appeal, dated 05.05.2025 before the competent Authority against the survey report issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal and the same had even been acknowledged by the said office. The Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed, giving liberty to the appellants to pursue the remedies as are available under law . How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.