Telangana High Court
W. Prakash vs The State Of Telangana, on 10 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
W.P. Nos.25248, 25071 AND 7982 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. K. Jamali, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P. No.25248 of 2024, Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for
the petitioners in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 and Mr. N. Manohar,
learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25071 of 2024, Mr.
L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.25248
and 7982 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in W.P.
No.25071 of 2024, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in W.P. Nos.25248 of 2024 and 25071 of
2024, Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4
and 5, while Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024.
2. As the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and
the same though the petitioners are different, all these writ petitions
were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of
this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.
No.25248 of 2024.
3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions and respondent
Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the
absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots in Survey
Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda
Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri
District. They have purchased the same under different registered
sale deeds way back in the years 1989 and 1990. All the plot
owners have organized themselves and formed an Association in
the name and style of 'Green Fields Plot Owners Association'.
4. When some unknown persons claimed right, title and
interest over the said property under the guise of false ORC, their
association preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District challenging the said ORC. The said appeal was
allowed. Challenging the same, the third parties carried the matter
to this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.34970 of 1997.
The same was heard and decided along with W.A. No.806 of 1999
remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
District for fresh consideration. The Joint Collector conducted a
denovo inquiry in File No.F1/4578/1998, and vide orders, dated
29.04.2002 held that the Inamdars and persons claiming through
the Inamdars and protected tenants were never in possession of the
subject lands as on 01.07.1973 and accordingly set aside the said
ORCs issued vide proceedings No.L/4062/1993 and L/4063/1993.
5. The said order dated 29.04.2002 was challenged by the
third parties by way of filing writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.11777,
14175 and 18107 of 2002, 23732 of 2003 and C.R.P. No.4830 of
2003. Vide order dated 29.12.2005, this Court dismissed the said
writ petitions upholding the order dated 29.04.2002. The
petitioner, Mr. P. Dayanand, in W.P. No.14175 of 2002 carried the
matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Civil)
No.2963 of 2006, which was also dismissed on17.04.2006. He
filed a review petition vide R.P. (C) No.972 of 2006 and the same
was also dismissed on 08.11.2006. Thereafter, he filed Curative
Petition (C) No.103 of 2007 in the said review petition and the
same was also dismissed.
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
6. Even the petitioner in W.P. No.11777 of 2002 filed SLP
vide SLP (C) No.8754 of 2006 challenging the common order
dated 29.12.2005 and the same was also dismissed on 03.07.2006.
7. During the said interregnum period, respondent No.1 had
issued a G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.06.2008 for regularization of
land. The petitioners herein availed the said scheme. They
submitted application by paying necessary charges. Since the
official respondents did not consider the said applications, they
approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.1178
of 2009, and this Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the
applications submitted by the individual plot owners of the
aforesaid Association under G.O.Ms.No.166. Thereafter, the
aforesaid Association also filed another writ petition vide W.P.
No.1606 of 2010, and this Court vide order dated 29.03.2011
directed the District Collector to complete the regularization
process within three (03) months from the date of said order.
8. The said Dayanad also filed a writ petition vide W.P.
No.3000 of 2011, wherein this Court directed the District Collector
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
to consider the objections filed by him while deciding the
regularization applications.
9. Vide letter dated 06.12.2008, the District Collector
directed the Tahsildar to process the regularization applications of
individual members. Thereafter, the District Collector afforded
opportunity to both the parties and passed order dated 15.03.2015
holding that the land is government land and the applicants are
eligible, but subject to the outcome in W.P. No.15895 of 2010,
which is still pending for adjudication before this Court.
10. The Plot owners of the aforesaid Association filed one
more writ petition vide W.P. No.1178 of 2009, wherein this Court
directed the District Collector to regularize the plots of individual
owners in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.166. While so, the
unofficial respondents herein filed a civil suit vide O.S. No.98 of
2021 for perpetual injunction before IX Additional Senior Civil
Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in
Survey No.375 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. As
against the same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021,
and the same was also dismissed by learned Principal District
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District on
21.02.2023. As against the said dismissal, the unofficial
respondents preferred a second appeal vide S.A. No.425 of 2023
before this Court and the same is pending.
11. Ignoring the above checkered history, the District
Collector issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the unofficial
respondents vide pattadar passbook Nos.T06010030074 and
T0601030075 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1.28 guntas
and 1.26 guntas in Survey Nos.385/A/2 and 385/A/1/2,
respectively, by recording that they purchased the said land on
17.07.2023. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 5 conducted a survey
on 25.07.2023. Before issuing the aforesaid pattadar passbooks,
the official respondents did not put the petitioners on notice and
afford them an opportunity. Therefore, the said pattadar passbooks
are liable to be cancelled and so also the panchanama conducted
on 25.07.2023 in respect of the land in Survey No.385.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has
produced written instructions of the Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal,
wherein it is stated that as per Khasra Pahani i.e., 195f4-55, the
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
land in Survey No.385 to an extent of Acs.12.09 guntas was
classified as Inam and recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain as
Inamdar, and possession column, the name of Shiva Lachaiah was
recorded as protected tenant, and so also as per Sessala Pahani i.e.,
1955-58. As per the pahani for the year 2015-16, the land in
Survey No.385/A to an extent of Acs.5.09 guntas, Survey
No.385/AA to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas and Survey No.385/E
to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas is classified as Inam patta and
recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain and others as Pattadars,
and in possession column as plots. As per the new ROR Act, 2020,
respondent No.2 - the District Collector is competent authority for
cancellation of passbooks.
13. Whereas, the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.
No.7982 of 2024 filed counter opposing the claim of the petitioners
and contending as follows:
i) Originally the total extent of land in Survey No.385 of
Kanajiguda Village is Acs.12.09 guntas, and the same
was recorded in the name of Mr. Saber Hussaini as
Inamdar.
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
ii) Mr.Saber Hussaini had four sons and the aforesaid
extent of Acs.12.09 guntas of land was devolved in
favour of Mr. Syed Kutubuddin Hussain, who in turn
gifted the same to his son, Mr. Akbar Nizamuddin.
iii) The father of these respondents, Mr. Ramachandra
Reddy and another were occupants/possessors of the
total extent of Acs.12.09 guntas in Survey no.385.
The father of these respondents was in possession of
the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey
No.385 since 1954-55.
iv) The father of these respondents was leaseholder of the
aforesaid property, and as per Koulnama (lease deed),
the koul (lease) amount was being paid regularly to
one Mr. Shivalingam, who was managing the property
on behalf of the owners.
v) After the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, their father
and one Mr. Narasimha Reddy approached the Inams
Tribunal to record their names as Inamdars. After the
death of their father, the petitioners herein along with
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
their brother, Mr. S. Malla Reddy filed a suit vide
O.S.No.115 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif
to declare them as possessors of the land to an extent
of Acs.5.00 guntas, along with their paternal uncle as
Kabzadars since 1954-55. Accordingly, the MRO,
Malkajgiri had passed the orders in their favour vide
file No.L/2977/1987 and also issued relevant pattadar
passbooks and title deeds in their names.
vi) These respondents had also approached the Inams
Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of
the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas on
16.09.1988. The same was sent to the Tahsildar,
Malkajgiri for preliminary enquiry vide proceedings
dated 03.12.1988. Upon enquiry conducted on
24.03.1989 and final enquiry, the Inams Tribunal
passed the judgment dated 02.09.1989 holding that the
said extent of Acs.5.00 guntas has been given equally
to these respondents and Mr. S. Malla Reddy and the
same shall be implemented after payment of Rs.432/-,
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
Rs.200.60ps. and Rs.400/- in lumpsum or in ten (10)
equal instalments by them.
vii) Accordingly, these respondents along with their
brother paid the said entire premium through Challan
No.124, dated 08.09.1989 of SBH City Branch and
thereupon their names were directed to be recorded as
owners of the land vide order dated 16.02.1990. Their
names were accordingly recorded as the owners of the
subject property and continued to be in peaceful
possession and ownership of the subject property.
viii) When some unknown persons were trying to
dispossess these respondents, they filed a suit vide
O.S. No.98 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction.
However, the same was dismissed. The appeal
preferred vide A.S.No.53 of 2021 was also dismissed.
They have also filed second appear vide S.A. No.425
of 2023 and the same is pending. Interim stay was
granted by this Court in the said second appeal on
11.12.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2023.
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
ix) While so, these respondents filed an application dated
15.07.2023 seeking demarcation of land in Survey
No.385. The Tahsildar, Malkajgiri, vide endorsement
dated 25.07.2023 confirmed the survey and conducted
panchanama with the local sketch. Thus, the location
sketch clearly shows that the lands in Survey Nos.383,
384, 379, 386 and 391 are bounded by Survey No.385.
x) As far as the petitioners' claim is concerned, as per
their sale deeds, their plots are in Survey Nos.378,
379, 381 and 386 and there is no reference with regard
to survey No.385. Whereas, the land of these
respondents is in Survey No.385.
xi) The proceedings of the Joint Collector and the RDO
and also the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are
not in respect of the land in Survey No.385.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
14. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the
petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and
possessors of the plots and also residential houses and respondent
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
Nos.6 and 7 i.e. S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy, are
claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the
agricultural land in Sy.Nos.385/A/2 and 385A/1/2 situated at
Kanagiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District.
15. The particulars of plot numbers, extent, survey number,
sale deed number and date etc. of the petitioners in W.P.No.25071
of 2024 are as mentioned below:-
Sl. Name of Plot Extent Sale deed Sy. Situated
Number
No. writ Sq.yds No&Date Nos. at
petitioner
1 W.Prakash 7 267 2969/1989, 378, Kanagiguda
26.07.1989 379, Village,
381, H/o Alwal
386 Mandal,
2 G.S.Ratnam 45 & 400 1188/1990, 378, Medchal-
46/P 26.04.1990 379, Malkajgiri
381, District
3 A.V. 9/P 150 302/1995, 374,
Ethiraju 01.02.1995 378,
H.No.1-
379,
30-73/5
381,
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
Sl. Name of Plot Extent Sale Sy.Nos.
Nos.
No. writ Sq.yds deed Situated at
petitioner No.& Date
1 B. Leela and 13 267 998/1989, 378, 379,
her brother 17.03.1989 381. 386
B.Vasanth
Kanajiguda
2 B.S.Subramany 14 267 997/1989, village,
am
17.03.1989 H/o Alwal
Mandal
3 N.Srinivasa 10 267 3401/1990,
Rao 31.08.1990 Medchal-
Malkajgiri
4 K.Srikanth Raj 20 267 3403/1990, District
(succeeded 13.08.1990
from his father
late
K.Ganeshraj)
Sl. Name of Plot Nos. Extent Sale deed Sy. Nos. and
No writ Sq.yds. No & Date Situated at
petitioner
1 Smt. Sobha 47 & 400 2207/1989, 378, 379,
Rani 46/P 24.05.1989 381, 386
(46A) Situated at
Kanajiguda
2 Alaparthy H.No.32- 267 332/1996, village,
15.02.1986 H/o Alwal
Plot Mandal
No.28
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
3 M.N. 35 267 8206/2014, Medchal-
Malkajgiri
Jayalakshmi 31.12.2014 District
(Succeeded
from her
husband M.R.
Narasimha
Reddy)
4 M.R. 36 267 8205/2014,
Narasimha 31.12.2014
Reddy
5 Panchagundla 15 200 47/1992,
Jay Ram (R.6)
06.01.1992
6 P. Meenakshi 19 and 334 43/1992,
15/P
(R.7) 06.01.1992
All the petitioners in three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and
7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute
owners and possessors of the aforesaid open plots and residential
houses basing on the aforesaid registered sale deeds situated in
Sy.Nos.378, 379, 381 and 386 of Kanajiguda village, H/o. Alwal,
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
16. Sri S.Sanjeev Reddy, the unofficial respondent in all the
aforesaid writ petitions is claiming that he is the absolute owner
and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1.28 guntas in
Sy.No.385/ అ /2 and Sri S.Mohan Reddy, respondent No.7 is
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land
Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.385/అ/1/2 situated at Kanajiguda village,
H/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.
17. In proof of their respective claims, the petitioners in all
the aforesaid three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in
W.P.No.7982/2024 filed copies of the registered sale deeds and
also link documents. Perusal of the same would reveal that they
have purchased the subject plots from Syed Akbar Nizamuddin
Hussain s/o late Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain.
18. In the recitals of the said sale deeds, it is mentioned that
their vendors i.e. Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and
Sri Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain were the owners and pattadars of the
land admeasuring 15000 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.378, 379, 385 and 386
situated at Kanajiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal. He has entered
into agreement of sale dated 08.11.1975 with the original owners,
who failed to execute the registered sale deeds in his favour.
Therefore, he has filed O.S.No.38 of 1989 for specific performance
of agreement of sale. The same was decreed on 13.02.1989.
Therefore, as nominee of the purchasers, he has executed the
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
aforesaid registered sale deeds in favour of writ petitioners in all
the three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in
W.P.No.7982 of 2024.
19. Whereas, Sri S.Sanjeev Reddy, and Sri S. Mohan Reddy
i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.25248 of 2024 and 25071 of
2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are
claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the
aforesaid land in Sy.Nos. 378, 379, 385 and 386. According to
them, their father Ramachandra Reddy and another were occupants
of land in Sy.No.385 admeasuring Ac.12.09 guntas. Their father
was in possession of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.385 since
1954 and 1955.
20. Perusal of the record would reveal that the said Sri
Sanjeev Reddy and Sri Mohan Reddy filed a suit vide O.S.No.98
of 2021 against Y.Ravinder and 6 others for perpetual injunction
in respect of open land to an extent of Ac.05.00 guntas out of
Ac.12.09 guntas in Sy.No.385 situated at Kanajiguda village, H/o
Alwal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. The said suit was dismissed
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
on 27.10.2021 by learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at
L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and decree, they have preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.53 of 2021.
Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District
dismissed the said appeal on 21.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said judgment, they have filed second appeal
vide S.A.No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending before this
Court. This Court granted interim order dated 11.12.2023 in
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 of 2023. The said second appeal is
pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting.
22. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions contend that
the subject plots are part and parcel of Greenfield colony. They are
in possession of the subject plots. They have narrated about filing
of appeals, writ petitions, CRPs etc. There is no need of referring
the same in detail in view of the lis involved in all the aforesaid
three writ petitions.
23. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners and
respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are aggrieved by
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
the survey dated 25.07.2023 conducted by Tahsildar, Mandal
Surveyor of Alwal Mandal and also the panchanama in respect of
the land in Sy.No.385. According to them, Tahsildar and Mandal
Surveyor of Alwal Mandal conducted survey on 25.07.2023 on the
request made by the said S. Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy
who tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the petitioners over their respective plots/houses. There are 600
house plots in the said lay out. They have obtained the aforesaid
orders from this Court to consider their applications seeking LRS.
They are in possession of the respective plots. Even then, Tahsildar
and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal, conducted survey without putting
them on notice and affording them an opportunity. Tahsildar,
Mandal Surveyor, Alwal did not even put other interested parties
on notice and afforded them an opportunity. In fact, there is no
agricultural land available in Sy.No.385 as claimed by the said
S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy. Part of the property is in
Alwal Municipality. Therefore, Tahsildar, Alwal cannot issue latest
pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the said S.Sanjeev
Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy dated 17.07.2023. Therefore, issuance
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
of pattadar passbooks in their favour is in violation of procedure
laid down under ROR Act, 2020. Thus, the survey and panchanama
both dated 25.07.2023 are also in violation of the principles of
natural justice, procedure laid down under the Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1923, and the guidelines issued by CCLA, for
conducting survey from time to time and principle laid down by
this Court and Apex Court.
24. Under the guise of the said survey, respondent Nos.6 and
7 S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy tried to interfere with the
possession of the petitioners in all the three writ petitions and
respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024. Challenging the
said action of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal,
the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
25. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. S. Sanjeev Reddy
and S.Mohan Reddy, in W.P.No.25071 of 2024 and W.P.No.25248
of 2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.7982 of 2023 are
claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the
subject property. On their application, the Tahsildar, Alwal
Mandal, has conducted survey, drawn panchanama strictly in
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
accordance with law and issued latest passbooks dated 17.07.2023
in their favour. There is no error in it.
26. The petitioners are claiming that they are the owners of
the respective plots in Survey Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and
386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal,
Medchal - Malkajgiri District. Whereas, they are claiming right
over the aforesaid land in Sy.No.385 of Kanajiguda Village, H/o
Alwal Mandal. Therefore, the plots of the petitioners are different
to the land claimed by them.
27. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the
petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions and respondent Nos.6
and 7 in W.P.No.7892 of 2024 are claiming that they are absolute
owners and possessors of the open/residential plots in Survey
Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda
Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri
District, basing on the registered sale deeds.
28. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7, S.Sanjeev Reddy and
S. Mohan Reddy are claiming that they are the owners of the
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
aforesaid land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, there is dispute with regard
to the identification of the land.
29. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have filed
plans- cum- lay outs issued by the then grampanchayat. According
to them, there are 600 residential plots. Most of them constructed
houses and living in the said houses. In proof of the same, they
have filed photographs.
30. Perusal of the record would reveal that latest passbooks
issued in favour of S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy are dated
17.07.2023. By the said date, Kanajiguda Village H/o Alwal
Mandal is merged in GHMC limits. Therefore, without considering
the said fact, 3rd respondent has issued passbooks in their favour.
The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020
(for short, 'ROR Act, 2020') is not applicable to non-agricultural
properties. It is intended for the agricultural lands and also for the
lands not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture
including horticulture. Admittedly, land in Sy.No.385 is in GHMC
limits of Alwal Circle, without considering the said aspects, latest
e-passbooks were issued to them.
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
31. Perusal of the panchanama dated 25.07.2023 and also
counter filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 would reveal that the
petitioners and other plot owners were not put on notice and
afforded opportunity while conducting survey. The aforesaid
survey numbers wherein the petitioners plots are situated are
abutting to the land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, Tahsildar, Mandal
Surveyor have to necessarily put the petitioners and other
interested parties on notice. Without putting the petitioners and
other interested parties on notice, the Tahsildar and Mandal
Surveyor Alwal Mandal, conducted survey dated 25.07.2023.
Therefore, the aforesaid survey dated 25.07.2023 conducted by
Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal is in violation of
principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the
Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1973, guidelines issued by
CCLA and also principle laid down by this Court in catena of
decisions. Therefore, survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 of
Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal are liable to be set
aside.
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
32. It is also relevant to note that the suit filed by S.Sanjeev
Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy vide O.S.No.98 of 2021 for perpetual
injunction before IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar,
Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in Survey No.375 and
the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021, and the
same was also dismissed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-
Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District on 21.02.2023. As
against the said dismissal, they have preferred second appeal vide
S.A. No.425 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted
interim injunction on 11.12.2023. During pendency of said Second
Appeal and subsistence of the interim order, the said S.Sanjeev
Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy cannot request Mandal Surveyor and
Tahsildar to conduct survey and fix boundaries. If there is any
problem with regard to the property claimed by them, including
identification aspect, they have to take steps by filing a petition in
the said Second Appeal seeking survey of land. But they have not
filed any such application. Therefore, on the said ground also the
impugned survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 of
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal, are liable to be set
aside.
33. Viewed from any angle, the survey and panchanama both
dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal
Mandal are in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation
of the guidelines issued by CCLA from time to time for conducting
survey, procedure laid down under the Survey and Boundaries Act,
1923, principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court. Therefore,
the survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 are liable to be set
aside. Consequently, passbooks issued in favour of Sri S.Sanjeeva
Reddy and Sri S.Mohan Reddy are also cancelled.
34. Considering the aforesaid issues and also judgment and
decree in O.S.No.98 of 2021 dated 25.07.2021, A.S.No.53 of 2021,
dated 21.02.2023, pendency of S.A. No. 425 of 2023 and interim
order dated 11.02.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 of 2023,
the 2nd respondent - the District Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri
District is directed to conduct enquiry in detail by putting said S.
Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy - respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in
W.P.Nos.23248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024, the writ petitioners in
KL,J
WP No.25248 of 2024 & batch
all three writ petitions, respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of
2024 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an
opportunity. He shall also consider the fact that the ROR Act, 2020
is not applicable to the urban properties and the land in Sy.No.385
is in GHMC limits. However, he shall complete the said exercise
within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
35. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are
disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in
these writ petitions shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:10.02.2025.
vvr
