Telangana High Court
Dr. Bandi Bhoomaiah vs The State Of Telangana, on 23 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 10407 OF 2023
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of
mandamus declaring the impugned order vide
No.GPN/01/2023, dated 21.02.2023, as illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and as without jurisdiction and consequently
to set aside the same and to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to
demolish the unauthorized construction raised in the open plots
of the petitioners in Plot Nos.30, 31, 34 and 43, in Survey
No.235, situated at Nadipalli Shivaru, Dichpalli Mandal,
Nizamabad District and to pass such other order or orders in
the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition
are that the petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2. The
petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit claiming to be the absolute
owner of the Plots No.30, 31, 34 and 43, in Survey No.235,
situated at Nadipalli Shivaru, Dichpalli Mandal, Nizamabad
District, having purchased the same through registered sale
deeds vide document Nos.(1) 2974 of 1993, dated 25.06.1993
(Plot No.30) consisting of 96 sq.yards; (2) 2975 of 1993 (Plot
No.31) consisting of 60 sq.yards; (3) 5720 of 2020 (Plot No.43)
consisting of 86 sq.yards; (4) 5720 of 2020 (Plot No.34)
consisting of 86 sq.yards, all located in Survey No.235. It is
submitted that all these plots have been purchased by his
vendor by way of a registered document No.407 of 1992, dated
06.02.1992. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 and his
family members have executed registered sale deed No.5720 of
2020, dated 10.06.2020, in favour of the petitioner No.2 in
respect of the Plot Nos.34 and 43 (total 173.32 sq.yards) in
Survey No.235 and delivered possession of the plots to the
petitioner No.2, who has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same ever-since. It is submitted that the
respondents No.6 and 7, based on the fabricated documents
obtained from his vendor, who did not have any title deed or
property in Survey No.235, have raised construction in 173
sq.yards i.e., covered by Plots No.34 and 43 and therefore, the
petitioners have submitted representations on 02.03.2022,
06.06.2022 and 09.09.2022. However, since no action was
taken thereon, the petitioners were constrained to file the
W.P.No.42919 of 2022 and this Court, vide orders dated
28.11.2022, had directed the respondents to dispose of the
representations of the petitioners within a period of six weeks
after issuing notices to the respondents No.6 and 7. It is
submitted that thereafter, the petitioners filed another
representation dated 30.11.2022 and the respondent No.5 has
required both the parties to submit their documents and passed
the present impugned order dated 21.02.2023 by directing the
petitioners as well as respondents to obtain the report from the
Tahsildar, Dichpally, for survey and demarcation. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the land has been
converted from agricultural to residential, the Tahasildar has no
jurisdiction to conduct physical survey of any property and
instead of the respondent No.5 calling for a report and link
documents of the vendors of the respondents No.6 and 7, the
respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order without any
application of mind and in a biased manner in favour of the
respondents No.6 and 7. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the only point for consideration before the Gram Panchayat was
whether there was any valid permission in favour of the
respondents No.6 and 7 for making any construction, but the
respondent No.5 has considered the title of the parties to the
suits without there being any jurisdiction vested in him for
giving such findings. He is therefore seeking setting aside of the
impugned order dated 21.02.2023 and also to direct the
respondents No.6 and 7 not to create any third party interest in
any manner in respect of subject properites. It is further
submitted that there is a Suit O.S.No.02/2012, filed by the
respondent No.6 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Nizamabad, against the petitioner No.1 for perpetual injunction
along with I.A.No.18/2012 and the same was dismissed by the
trial Court and the C.M.A.No.18/2012 filed on the file of
Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, was also dismissed by
giving a finding that the respondent No.6 was never in
possession of the property and that the respondent No.6 has
filed C.R.P.No.791 of 2018 before this Court, which was also
dismissed vide orders dated 16.03.2018. Therefore, according to
the petitioners, the respondent No.6 has failed to prove his right
or possession over the subject property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Marepally Pandurangam
Vs. State of Telangana and Others in W.P.No.2136 of 2020,
dated 24.11.2021, for the proposition that once the agricultural
lands has been converted into plots and are no more put to
agricultural use, the revenue authorities cannot issue pattadar
passbooks in respect of the said land and has no jurisdiction to
interfere with the matter under the Telangana Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020.
5. The respondents No.5 and 6 have filed their
respective counter affidavits. The counter affidavit of respondent
No.5 supports the impugned order dated 21.02.2023, while
respondent No.6 reiterates that he is the owner and titleholder
of the subject property.
6. A notice was issued to the respondent No.7, but
there is no appearance on his behalf. It is noticed that the
notice sent by this Court was returned un-served with postal
endorsement "addressee left hence returned to sender". The
personal notice sent by the counsel for the petitioner has also
been returned 'un-served'.
7. After hearing all the parties, this Court finds that
the petitioners claim to have purchased the plots in Survey
No.235, whereas the respondents No.6 and 7 are stated to have
purchased properties in Survey No.235A, 235AA. There seems
to be double registration in respect of the Plot Nos.34 and 43
and both parties are claiming that they have purchased the said
plots through registered sale deeds. It is after taking note of all
these facts that the respondent No.5 has directed for survey and
demarcation of the plots which lie in Survey Nos.235, 235A and
235AA, for taking further course of action in the matter. From
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5, it also
appears that the respondent No.6 has been granted Nala
Conversion and thereafter, permission for construction of a
house and therefore, it cannot be stated that it is an
unauthorized construction. However, in respect of respondent
No.7, who also claims to be the owner of Plot Nos.34 and 43 in
Survey No.235, has not made any construction.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the location of Survey Nos.235, 235A and 235AA is
in question and therefore, the respondent No.5 has requested
the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents to approach
the Tahsildar for survey and demarcation. The entire issue is in
respect of Plot Nos.34 and 43. The judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are only in respect of
interfering in non-agricultural lands which have been divided
into plots. However, the issue before this Court is for conduct of
survey. Without identifying the exact location of the plots, there
cannot be any adjudication of the matter.
9. In view of the same, this Court finds no illegality in
the direction given by the respondent No.5 for the conduct of
survey and demarcation. The petitioners as well as the
respondents No.6 and 7 are directed to approach the Survey
Authorities for conduct of survey and demarcation of the plots.
In respect of the construction already made by the respondent
No.6, as it is stated that he has been granted permission for
construction, this Court is not inclined to give any direction for
coercive steps against the same at this stage. The construction,
however, shall be subject to the outcome of the demarcation of
the subject plots. The petitioners as well as the respondents
shall approach the Survey Authorities for conduct of the survey
and take action accordingly. Till such time, the official
respondents are directed to maintain the status-quo as on today
in respect of the subject land.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 23.07.2025
bak
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 10407 OF 2023
Dated: 23.07.2025
bak
