Telangana High Court

M/S. Netaji Plot Owners Welfare ... vs The State Of Telangana on 19 March, 2025

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

             WRIT PETITION Nos.2295 and 4916 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

The issue involved in both the writ petitions is intrinsically

interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together

and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.2295 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the actions of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing notice dated 25.10.2024, 31.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 pursuant to the Appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 for demarcation of survey numbers and fixing boundaries for Sy.Nos.133, 134 and 156, situated at Ameenpur Village, Mandal and Municipality, Sangareddy District Telangana without following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 11 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-aside the impugned notice dated 08.01.2025 along with the consequential proceedings of respondent No.4 and to pass..."

3. W.P.No.4916 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the actions of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing notices dated 31/12/2024 and 08/01/2025 pursuant to the Appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 for demarcation of survey numbers and fixing boundaries for Sy.Nos.133, 134 and 156 situated at Ameenpur Village, Mandal and Municipality Sangareddy District Telangana State without following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 11 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned notices dated 31/12/2024 and 08/01/2025 along with the consequential proceedings of the Respondent No.4 and further direct the respondent No.4 to dispose of the Appeal filed by the 6th respondent by a reasoned order after hearing the petitioners and other parties and communicate the same to the parties ..."

4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.2295 of 2025 is taken up

as leading case to decide the lis in these cases.

5. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

It is stated that the Petitioner No.1-M/s.Netaji Plot Owners

Welfare Association, was formed for the benefit and welfare of the plot

purchasers of the lands in Sy.Nos.128, 130 and 135 situated at

Ameenpur Village. It is further stated that the members of the

Association purchased various plots in the layout approved by the

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) under registered

sale deeds. It is also stated that when the disputes arose with regard

to identification and localization of the plots purchased by the

petitioners forming part of Sy.No.128, 130 and 135, with the adjacent

lands in Sy.Nos.130, 133, 134, 152, 153 and 156 of Ameenpur

Village, an application was submitted for conducting survey on the

file of respondent No.4 and a notice dated 07.09.2018 was issued for

conducting survey and accordingly, survey was conducted and

panchanama was drawn on 18.09.2018. Challenging the survey

report, respondent No.6 herein has filed W.P.No.1200 of 2019 on the

file of this Court and this Court, vide order dated 13.09.2023

disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations:

"7. In view of the same, with the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1923 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, if the appeal is preferred by the petitioner within the time stipulated hereinabove, the appellate authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner, by duly putting the interested persons on notice including respondent No.5."

It is stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the respondent

No.6 has filed an appeal. Stating that pending adjudication of the

appeal, the respondent No.4 have issued impugned notices dated

25.10.2024, 31.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 for conducting survey of the

subject lands and alleging that the said notices are contrary to the

directions issued by this Court, the present writ petitions came to be

filed.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.6

claiming to be Managing Partner of M/s.Keerthi Kaveri Properties

stating that the company is the absolute owner and possessor of land

admeasuring Ac.16-07 gts in Sy.No.133, Ac.19-13 gts in Sy.No.134

and Ac.18-10 gts in Sy.No.156, total admeasuring Ac.53.30 gts

having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

document No.2903/2003 dated 31.03.2003. It is further stated that

the writ petitioners disputing the boundary of the lands of the

respondent No.6-company, filed an application seeking to conduct

survey by the Assistant Director and the Assistant Director in terms

of various circulars issued under the Telangana Survey and

Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short 'Act, 1923") has conducted survey

and fixed the boundaries vide panchanama dated 21.06.2005. Not

satisfying with the said survey report, it is stated that the President of

the Petitioner No.1-Association made an application dated

02.06.2006 on the file of respondent No.4 requesting to conduct

survey for the lands in Sy.No.126 to 137 and the respondent No.4

ignoring the earlier survey conducted on 21.06.2005 again conducted

the survey of the property on 16.10.2006 and 18.10.2006 and passed

orders vide Memo No.A3/583/2006 dated 13.11.2006 confirming

that the survey conducted earlier is proper and communicated the

said report to the Petitioner No.1-Association. Questioning the same,

Mr. Upendra Laxman Rao, claiming to be the Secretary of the

petitioner No.1-Association filed a suit vide O.S.No.647 of 2006 on

the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. It is also stated

that the respondent No.6 herein and petitioner No.1-Association filed

I.A.Nos.641 and 642/2007 for appointment of Advocate

Commissioner to conduct survey with the assistance of Surveyor and

the same were allowed. In pursuance of the same, the survey was

conducted and when the report was in favour of respondent No.6 the

petitioner No.1-Assocaition filed another I.A.No.127/2009 for

appointment of another Advocate Commissioner and the same was

dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of

I.A.No.127/2009, the petitioner No.1-Association filed C.R.P.No.5145

of 2009 on the file of this Court and this Court vide order dated

04.12.2009 dismissed the said CRP. It is stated that the suit vide

O.S.No.642/2007 filed by the petitioner No.1-Association was

dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner No.1-Association filed A.S.No.29/2018 on the

file of Principal District Judge, at Sangareddy and the same was

dismissed as withdrawn. It is further stated that the survey

conducted on 21.06.2005 and 13.11.2006 have attained finality in

view of dismissal of the suit and confirmed by the appellate Court. It

is further stated that when the respondent No.3 without taking into

consideration of the earlier orders passed in I.A.Nos.641 and

642/2007 in O.S.No.647/2006 dated 21.06.2007, has drawn

panchanama dated 18.09.2018, the respondent No.6 herein filed

W.P.No.1200/2019 wherein this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023

disposed of the writ petition directing him to avail the remedy of

appeal. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 has filed appeal

dated 04.10.2023 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.4

has issued impugned notices but the petitioner instead of

participating in the survey proposed to be conducted by the Assistant

Director has filed the writ petitions and as such the present writ

petitions filed are misconceived and ultimately prayed for dismissal of

the same.

7. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners denying the

averments made in the counter affidavit.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of

the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

9. Sri J. Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners in W.P.No.2295 of 2025 and Sri Peri Prabhakar,

learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.4916 of 2025 have

submitted that the members of the petitioner No.1-Association have

purchased various plots in Sy.Nos.128, 130 and 135, situated at

Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District, under registered

sale deeds in approved layout sanctioned by the HUDA and when the

disputes arose with regard to identification and localization of the

plots purchased by the petitioners, an application was submitted for

conducting survey on the file of respondent No.4 and a notice dated

07.09.2018 was issued for conducting survey and accordingly, survey

was conducted and panchanama was drawn on 18.09.2018.

Challenging the survey report, the respondent No.6 filed

W.P.No.1200/2019 on the file of this Court and this Court vide order

dated 13.09.2023 relegated the respondent No.6 to file an appeal

under Section 11 of the Act, 1923 and even before the appeal has

been decided, the respondent No.4 has again issued the impugned

notices for conducting survey and the notices issued are not

sustainable in law and prayed to allow the writ petitions by setting

aside the impugned notices.

10. Per contra, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent No.6 has submitted that 6th respondent is the Managing

Partner of M/s. Keerthi Kaveri Properties and owner of the lands to

an extent of Ac.53-30 gts in Sy.Nos.133, 134, 156 purchased under

registered sale deed bearing document No.2903/2003 dated

31.03.2003. It is further submitted that earlier on the request of the

petitioner No.1-Association, a survey was conducted by the Assistant

Director and a panchanama was drawn on 21.06.2005 and

thereafter, again on the request of the petitioner No.1-Association a

re-survey was conducted on 16.10.2006 and 18.10.2006 and the

respondent No.4 issued a memo dated 13.11.2006 confirming the

earlier survey and questioning the same, the petitioner No.1-

Association instituted suit vide O.S.No.647/2006 and in terms of the

orders passed in I.A.Nos.641 and 642 of 2007 dated 21.06.2007,

survey was conducted by the Advocate Commissioner with the help of

the Surveyor and when the report was in favour of respondent No.6

the petitioner No.1-Assocaition filed another I.A.No.127/2009 for

appointment of another Advocate Commissioner and the same was

dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of

I.A.No.127/2009, the petitioner No.1-Association filed C.R.P.No.5145

of 2009 on the file of this Court and this Court vide order dated

04.12.2009 dismissed the said CRP. Thereafter, the suit vide

O.S.No.647/2006 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

16.11.2017 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1-

Association filed A.S.No.29/2018 and the same was dismissed as

withdrawn. Having allowed the survey proceedings to attain finality

by dismissal of the suit and the appeal suit, the petitioner No.1-

Asosciation is not having any right to dispute the survey conducted

by the Assistant Director and the quasi judicial authorities are not

having any power to review the orders passed by the Civil Court

under the guise of conducting re-survey. It is further submitted that

when the survey department without taking into consideration the

earlier orders passed in CRP Nos.5145/2009 and O.S.No.647/2006,

issued survey report dated 18.09.2018, the respondent No.6 was

constrained to file W.P.No.1200/2019 and the same was disposed of

relegating the respondent No.6 to file an appeal. In terms of the

orders passed in W.P.No.1200/2019, the respondent No.6 has filed

an appeal on 04.10.2023 and as part of deciding appeal, the

respondent No.4 has issued impugned notices. Therefore, there is no

illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondent

No.4 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

11. A careful examination of the facts would reveal that earlier, on

the request of the petitioner No.1-Association, a survey was

conducted on 21.06.2005 by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land

Records and panchanama was drawn. Having been not satisfied with

the said survey report, the Petitioner No.1-Association made an

application dated 02.06.2006 on the file of respondent No.4

requesting to conduct survey for the lands in Sy.No.126 to 137 and

the respondent No.4 vide Memo No.A3/583/2006 dated 13.11.2006

confirmed that the survey conducted earlier is proper. It is also borne

from the record that questioning the Memo dated 13.11.2006, a suit

was filed by the petitioner No.1-Association vide O.S.No.647/2006

and on the applications filed by the petitioner No.1-Association and

respondent No.6 vide I.A.Nos.641 and 642/2007 dated 21.06.2007,

Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct the survey. In

pursuance of the same, the survey was conducted and when the

report was in favour of respondent No.6 the petitioner No.1-

Assocaition filed another I.A.No.127/2009 for appointment of another

Advocate Commissioner and the same was dismissed by the trial

Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1-Association filed

CRP No.5145/2009 on the file of this Court and the same was

dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2009. Subsequently, the suit vide

O.S.No.642/2007 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

16.11.2017. Thereafter, an application has been filed seeking to

conduct re-survey of the subject lands, which culminated in passing

orders in W.P.No.1200/2019.

12. As per Circular vide Rc.No.N1/6543/1999 dated 25.07.2001,

issued by the Commissioner & Director, Survey Settlement and Land

Records, Hyderabad, against the orders of the Inspector of Survey

and Land Records, appeal would lie to the Assistant Director, Survey

and Land Records and the Assistant Director entertaining the appeal,

shall conduct survey and demarcation. In the instant cases, the only

grievance of the petitioners is that pending adjudication of the appeal

filed by the respondent No.6, the respondent No.4 is not having

power or authority to conduct the survey. Whereas, the case of the

respondent No.6 is that entertaining the appeal, the impugned

notices have been issued by the respondent No.4 for conducting

survey and demarcation.

13. To resolve the inter se disputes and as it is stated that the

appeal dated 04.10.2023 filed by the respondent No.6 is pending on

the file of respondent No.4-appellate authority, this Court deems it

appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are

permitted to file their objections, if any, in the pending appeal within

a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

After considering the objections, if any, filed by the petitioners, the

respondent No.4 shall pass a reasoned order determining for

conducting of survey of the subject land. In the event of the appellate

authority coming to a conclusion that fresh survey has to be

conducted, notices shall be issued to the parties to the lis or any

other effected persons, and proceed with conducting of survey, in

accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a

period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed

of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

19.03.2025 EDS