Telangana High Court
Erukulla Rajendar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.20147 of 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.6.
2. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner has
filed a suit in O.S.No. 343 of 2010 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent No.6
seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring
Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.1913/B, situated at Madikonda Village,
Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District.
3. Respondent No.6 is claiming ownership of the land
admeasuring Ac.0-29 guntas in Sy.No.1912/E; Ac.8-00 guntas in
Sy.No.1913/B; and Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.1914/B, total
admeasuring Ac.11-19 guntas, situated at Madikonda Village,
Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District. He has also filed a
counter claim in respect of the said land in O.S.No.343 of 2010.
Vide judgment dated 01.04.2021, the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Warangal, decreed the said suit and dismissed the
counterclaim. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed first
appeals, vide A.S.Nos.269 and 296 of 2022.
4. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.6, the
said appeals were transferred to two different Courts on the
ground of jurisdiction. He has also filed interlocutory
applications in the said appeals, which are currently pending.
During the pendency of the said appeals and interlocutory
applications, respondent No.6 approached respondent No.4 and
submitted an application with a request to conduct survey and
demarcate the land in Sy.Nos.1912/E, 1913/B and 1914/B. On
receipt of the said application, respondent No.4 assigned the
responsibility of conducting survey to respondent No.5, who, in
turn, issued a notice dated 07.07.2025, fixing the survey on
15.07.2025. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed the
present writ petition.
5. As discussed supra, the aforesaid two appeals and the
interlocutory applications filed by respondent No.6 are
admittedly pending before the trial Court. If there is any dispute
with regard to the survey, identification, and physical features of
the subject property, respondent No.6 has to file an application
under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., seeking the appointment of
an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting a
survey and noting down the physical features, etc. It is for the
appellate Court to dispose of such application. Therefore,
respondent No.6 cannot approach respondent No.4 seeking
survey of the land in the aforesaid three survey numbers. It is
impermissible.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned
notice dated 07.07.2025 of respondent No.5 is set aside. Liberty
is granted to respondent No.6 to file an application under Order
XXVI Rule 9 of the C.P.C., in A.S.Nos.269 and 296 of 2022
before the appellate Court, seeking appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner to conduct the survey with the help of officials
from the Survey Department and note down the physical
features, etc. It is for the appellate Court to dispose of the said
application.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
11.09.2025
sa
