Telakapally Chandra Shekhar Sarma vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5152 Tel

Telangana High Court

Telakapally Chandra Shekhar Sarma vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                 AND
          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                     WRIT APPEAL No.221 of 2025

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara)

Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant; Sri Katram Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri Parsa

Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9.

2. This is an Intra-Court appeal preferred by the

appellant/writ petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2025

passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33496 of 2024,

whereby, a direction was issued to respondent authorities to

process the application submitted by respondent Nos.7 to 9

seeking to conduct survey of lands in Sy.Nos.270 and 304 of

Ainapur Village, Komaravelly Mandal, Siddipet District.

Facts of the case:

3. The appellant filed W.P.No.33496 of 2024 to declare the

action of respondent No.6 in issuing impugned notices bearing

No.B/677/2024, B/678/2024 in File No.A3/595/2024, dated

18.11.2024 for conducting survey of land in Sy.Nos.304 and 270,

situated at Ainapur Village, Komaravelly Mandal, Siddipet

District, as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

4. The appellant and his wife are the owners and

possessors of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.1.25 gts., in

Sy.No.306/A/1, Ac.3.16 gts., in Sy.No.306/B, Ac.1.22 gts., in

Sy.No.306/D, Ac.2.00 gts., in Sy No.306/E, Ac.0.02 gts., in

Sy.No.307/A, Ac.3.00 gts., in Sy No.307/D, Ac.1.18 gts., in

Sy.No.307/G, Ac.0.25 gts., in Sy No.307/H/2, Ac.0.18 gts., in

Sy.No.308/A/1/3, total admeasuring Ac.14.24 gts., situated at

Ainapur Village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District. The

said lands have been purchased under various sale deeds in the

year 2004. At the instance of respondent No.7, the respondent

Nos.4 and 5 issued notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024

proposing to conduct survey of lands in Sy.Nos.270 and 304,

situated at Ainapur Village. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant

has raised objections vide letter dated 22.07.2024 and also

preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.26127 of 2024 to set aside

the said notices. This Court vide order dated 21.09.2024 directed

respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein to consider the objections dated

22.07.2024 and conduct survey strictly in accordance with law

by serving notices on all the interested parties.

5. In the interim, respondent Nos.7 and 8 criminally

trespassed into the appellant's property and caused damage of

property worth Rs.2,50,000/-. In that regard, on the complaint

lodged by the appellant, the police registered an FIR against

respondent No.8 for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(5)

r/w 3(5) BNS. The appellant protected his land by erecting

cement plate wall. Even then, when respondent Nos.7 and 8 are

threatening to withdraw the criminal case and are making

continuous efforts to grab the appellant's property, the appellant

and his wife filed the suit vide O.S.No.501 of 2024 on the file of

the 1 Additional Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet seeking perpetual

injunction against respondent Nos.7 and 8. Before filing of the

said suit, respondent No.7 filed the suit vide O.S.No.474 of 2024

against the appellant and his wife seeking perpetual injunction

with respect to land in Sy.No.304/B/1 to an extent of Ac.0.18

gts., land in Sy.No.270/G/1/1/1 to an extent of Ac.0.11 gts. and

land in Sy.No.304/1 to an extent of Ac.0.10 gts., situated at

Ainapur Village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 21.09.2024 in W.P.No.26127

of 2024 passed by this Court, respondent Nos.5 and 6 issued the

impugned notices dated 18.11.2024 for conducting the survey of

lands in Sy.Nos.304 and 270, which are as follows:

Government of Telangana Office of Tahsildar, Komuravelli Mandalam Siddipeta District

File No. A3/595/2024 B/678/2024 W.P.No.26127 of 2024 dt 18.11.2024

SURVEY NOTICE

SUBJECT: Land measurements - fixing of boudnareis- siddipet district, komuravelli mandalam, Ayinapur village Sy.Nos.304, 270 to fix the boundary by the mandal suvenuyor - reg.

Ref: Application filed by Kaitha Srimnivas Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy

****

With regard to the above subject matter, this is to inform you that, the Mandal Survyeor will fix the date i.e., 02.12.2024 morning at 10.00 am for conducting of survey by fixing up the boundaries of the land in Sy.Nos. 304, 270 situated at Ayinapur village, hence, on the said date, the concerned pattedar and surrounding pattedar may kindly appear along with relevant documents

In future the above officers are anybody conduct the survey of the land and the same is in the court and the same is informed to the authority before the survey.

Sd/-

Komuravelli Mandal Surveyor Siddipeta District

Copy to Mandal Girdavar, komuravelli to appear on the above date along with pahani copy Kayithi Srinivas Reddy, son of Bal reddy the applicant

Syed Ravoof Madani, son of Ghousuddin Syed Althaf Madani, son of Ghousuddin Manja Rajaiah, son of Narsaiah Telkapalli Chandrasekhar Sarma, son of Narsimhaiah Telkapalli Leela, wife of Chandrasekhar Sarma Kallem Ganesh Babu, son of Ramakrihna Sunkari Narsinga Rao, son of Prakash Erpula Chandraiah, S/o. Agaiah Muthyamn Anjanaih, S/o. Laxmaiah Komuravelli Shivakumar, son of Jogaiah Aneboyina Mallaiah, S/o. Yellaiah Janagam Srikanth, son of Balaiah Errolla Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah

Mergu Pegondaswamy, son of Balaiah Matchimadla Muthaiah, son of laxmaiah Anneboyina Poshaiah, son of Yellaiah

Government of Telangana Office of Tahsildar, Komuravelli Mandalam Siddipeta District

File No. A3/595/2024 B/677/2024 W.P.No. 26127 of 2024 dt 18.11.2024

SURVEY NOTICE

SUBJECT: Land measurements - fixing of boudnareis- siddipet district, komuravelli mandalam, Ayinapur village Sy.Nos.304, 270 to fix the boundary by the mandal suvenuyor - reg.

Ref: Application filed by Sayyed Rough Madani, son of Ghousebadan

**** With regard to the above subject matter, this is to inform you that, the Mandal Survyeor will fix the date i.e., 02.12.2024 morning at 10.00 am for conducting of survey by fixing up the boundaries of the land in Sy.Nos.304, 270 situated at Ayinapur village, hence, on the said date, the concerned pattedar and surrounding pattedar may kindly appear along with relevant documents

In future the above officers are anybody conduct the survey of the land and the same is in the court and the same is informed to the authority before the survey.

Sd/-

Komuravelli Mandal Surveyor Siddipeta District Copy to Mandal Girdavar, komuravelli to appear on the above date along with pahani copy Syed Ravoof madani, son of Ghousebaddan Telkapall Chandraekhara sarma, son of Narsimaiah Yerolla Srinivas, son of Mallaiah Kallem Ganesh, son of Ramakrishna Erpula Chandraiah, S/o. Agaiah Kayithi Srinvias Teddy, son of Bal reddy Syed Althaf Madani, son of Ghousuddin Pittala Kanukaiah, son of Mallaiah Janagam Srikanth, son of Balaiah Mergu Pegondaswamy, son of Balaiah Patchimadla Muthaiah, son of Laxmaiah Aneboyina Poshaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Telkapalli Leela, wife of Chandrasekhar Sarma Manja Rajaiah, son of Narsaiah Manja Kanakaiah, son of narsaiah Mutyam Anjaiah, son of Laxmaiah Komuravelli Shivakumar, son of Jogaiah Annaboyina Mallaiah, son of Yellaiah Sunkari Narsinga Rao, sonof Prakash Md. Afzal Pasha, son of Husman Ale

7. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid survey notices

as respondent No.5-The Mandal Surveyor, Komaravelly Mandal,

Siddipet District did not pass a detailed order referring to the

objections dated 22.07.2024 as directed by this Court vide order

dated in 21.09.2024 in W.P.No.26127 of 2024, but directed the

appellant to attend the survey proposed to be conducted on

02.12.2024. Assailing the said notices, he filed present

W.P.No.33496 of 2024. The learned Single Judge referring the

suits filed by the respective parties and the representations made

for conducting survey prior to the filing of the suits having

fulfilled all the requirements of circular instructions issued by the

Commissioner, had disposed of the said writ petition on the

premise that mere conducting of survey does not confer any title

or ownership nor does it take away rights of the parties. Further,

it is held that the survey is meant for fixing the boundaries

without referring to the inter-se disputes between the parties and

therefore, directed the respondent authorities to conduct survey

by issuing notices to all interested parties and also considering

their objections. Hence, the writ appeal.

Contentions of the writ appellant:

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the

order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous as the

objections raised by the writ appellant vide letter dated

22.07.2024 have not been taken into consideration by respondent

Nos.5 and 6 and the impugned notices were issued in violation of

the orders of this Court dated 21.09.2024 in W.P.No.26127 of

2024. Further, it is argued that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have sold

their entire land and that there is no agricultural land available

to them in Sy.Nos.304 and 270 of Ainapur Village as said land is

converted into plots and sold to third parties. It is vehemently

argued that conducting the survey is going to have an adverse

effect on the interest of the appellant in O.S.No.501 of 2024 and

therefore, objected to conduct of survey and prayed to set aside

the impugned notices. The writ appellant relied upon judgment of

a Division Bench of this Court in Akku Laxman Rao vs. IDPL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society 1.

Contentions of respondent Nos.7 to 9:

9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 supported

the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge alleging

that the appellant does not have any interest in land in

Sy.Nos.304 and 270 of Ainapur Village as their land is located in

2021 SCC OnLine TS 1983

Sy.Nos.306/A/1, 306/B, 306/D, 306/E, 307/A, 307/D, 307/G,

307/H/2 and 308/A/1/3 but not in Sy.Nos.304 and 270.

Further, it is argued that the notices of respondent Nos.4 and 5

were issued prior to the institution of suits in O.S.Nos.474 of

2024 and 501 of 2024. The respondents argued that pendency of

a civil suit does not come in the conduct of survey. In support

thereof, respondents relied upon judgment of a Division Bench of

this Court in W.A.No.1085 of 2024 and orders passed by this

Court W.P.Nos.32785 of 2022 and 15666 of 2024. They

further relied on the orders passed by the Madras High Court in

WMP (MD) Nos.17420, 17421, 17422 of 2023 and W.P.(MD)

No.5491 of 2023.

Contentions of learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 6 :

10. The learned Government Pleader urged that impugned

notices are issued pursuant to the order of this Court in

W.P.No.26127 of 2024, dated 21.09.2024.

11. Considered the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant, learned Government Pleader for revenue for

respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.7

to 9, perused the record and the citations relied upon by both the

learned counsel.

Analysis of the Court:

12. A perusal of the record, more particularly, the suits filed

by the respective parties vide O.S.No.474 of 2024 filed by

respondent No.7 and O.S.No.501 of 2024 filed by the writ

appellant and his wife show that there is dispute about the

location of the property on ground and both the counsels admit

that there are boundary disputes. Both the parties are alleging

interference on the part of another and have sought perpetual

injunction by filing respective suits.

13. It is crucial to note that the appellant is claiming land in

Sy.Nos.306, 307 and 308 of Ainapur Village, whereas respondent

No.7 is claiming right and title over the land in Sy.Nos.304 and

270 of Ainapur Village. At a glance, it appears that the rival

parties are claiming rights over land in different survey numbers.

However, pleadings of the suits disclose that there is a serious

dispute about the identity of their respective lands on ground,

due to which, the writ appellant got a criminal case registered

against respondent No.8 alleging illegal trespass and damage to

his property. Even before the parties approached civil court,

respondent No.7 had made an application to respondent Nos.5

and 6-The Tahsildar and the Mandal Surveyor for conducting

survey of land in Sy.Nos.304 and 270, pursuant to which, notices

were issued and said notices became subject matter of

W.P.No.26127 of 2024.

14. This Court disposed of the said writ petition to conduct

the survey by considering the objections dated 22.07.2024 raised

by the writ appellant and by issuing notices to all the concerned.

While so, respondent No.5-The Mandal Surveyor issued the

impugned survey notices by complying one of the direction of this

Court i.e. issuing notices to all the persons who are owning land

in concerned survey numbers i.e. 304 and 270. With respect to

second direction i.e., to give a detailed reasoned order on the

objections raised by the writ appellant, the impugned survey

notices dated 18.11.2024 are bereft of reasons for the objections

dated 22.07.2024. The said notices have a reference of

W.P.No.26127 of 2024, but, does not give any reasons for

disregarding the objections raised by the writ appellant for

conducting survey. However, said point has lost the notice of the

learned Single Judge and therefore, reiterated the previous

directions of this Court in the order dated 21.09.2024 in

W.P.No.26127 of 2024. In essence, in case, respondent Nos.5 and

6 proceed with survey without passing detailed order on the

objections raised by the writ appellant, the same would be a

violation of this Court's order in W.P.No.26127 of 2024.

15. The judgment of this Court in Akku Laxman Rao's case

(1 Supra) relied upon by the appellant is relevant to the instant

case to the extent that there is no surviving interest for

respondent Nos.7 and 8 in Sy.Nos.304 and 270 as they have

allegedly sold the entire land to third parties by converting into

plots. If so, locus standi of respondent Nos.7 and 8 seeking to

conduct survey would be in question. Even so, since the order of

this Court in W.P.No.26127 of 2024 is not challenged and has

attained finality, neither the issue of locus standi nor the issue of

conducting the survey during the pendency of civil suits can be

revisited.

16. Among the decisions relied upon by the respondent Nos.7

to 9, this Court is in conformity with the legal ratio laid down by

this Court and the Madras High Court in relevant citations

(supra) that pendency of litigation before Courts is not a bar for

the authorities to conduct survey or resurvey in the absence of

any stay/interim order/interim injunction from proceeding

further. Consequently, this Court is not questioning the validity

of impugned notices merely on account of pending suits but on

account of failure on the part of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in

passing a reasoned order to the objections raised by the writ

appellant. Hence, the writ appeal has to be allowed by setting

aside the impugned notices bearing No.B/677/2024,

B/678/2024 in File No.A3/595/2024, dated 18.11.2024.

17. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the

impugned notices bearing No.B/677/2024, B/678/2024 in File

No.A3/595/2024, dated 18.11.2024 issued by respondent

authorities are set aside.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

stand disposed of.

____________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 29.04.2025 gvl