[ 34e1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMl BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEALNO:1528 0F 2017

writ Appear under crause 15-of the Letters patent

against the order passed dated

02-06-2017 in W.p. No. 26495 ot 2011. on the fite oi tne Hign Court.

Between:

1. The District Collector,Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

2 Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad oistrict, at iyderabad

3. The lt4andal Revenue Officer, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad, Districi

AND

...APPELLANTS /PET|T|ONERS

1. Sri Ayub Kamal, S/o Gulam triloinuddin, Aged 65 years, Occ Land Lord

Represented by his GpA Holder IVA Jabbar STo.Late tr,4ohd.Khaja, aged about

50 years, Fyo.1-5-13/1 , Krishna Nagar Cotony, Bholakpur, lVtusieerabad,

Hyderabad

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. M/s. Sandesh Estates (p) Ltd., company having his registered offices at

prot

No.1112, MLAs Colony,.Road No.12, Banjara ni,s, nfOeraOaO, representeO

by their Director Sri.G-.Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.G.Ram Reddy,'"q"J A

years, Occ Director of Company, R/o.plot No..l 112, MLAs Coionyi Road

No..l 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

l\//s Gajjala Ram Reddy properties (p) Ltd., company having his registered

offices at Plot No.1 1 12, MLAs Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hr:[s, Hyd-erabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of company, Rr/o.plot trto.t t tz, rvllAs corony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

M/s.Mouna Estates Private Ltd., company having his registered offices at

plot

No.1112, MLAs Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, represented

by their Director Sri.G.tVladhusudhan Reddy, S/o.G.Ram Reddy, aged 4g

years, Occ Director of Company, R/o.ptot No.1112, MLAs Colonyl Road

No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

fVl/s.Sandesh constructions pvt. Ltd., company having his registered offices at

Plot No.1112, MLAs Colony, Road No.12, Bantara Hills, Hyderabad,

3

4

5

represented by their Director Sri.G.lVladhusudhan Rerl, y, S/o_G_Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rt/o.plot lJ ,

1 1 12, MLAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

6. M/s.GVR Properties Private Ltd., company having hrr registered offices at

Plot No.1112, MLAs Cotony, Road No.12, Banla a Hills, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G. Madhusudhan Rerk y,, S/c.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years Occ Director of Company, R/o.plot Nr . 1

.l

112, It/LAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

7. lv1/s.Mouna Properties Private Ltd., company having lri ; registered offices at

Plot No.1112, MLAs Colony, Road No.12, Banj,r a Hills, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director sri.G.tr,4adhusudhan Recr y, S/o.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Ri/o.plot N( .l.l 12, MLAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

B. It4/s G.s.R.Properties Private Ltd., company having h r registered offices at

Plot No.1112, tvllAs Colony, Road No.12, Banjzr a Hills, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G. Madhusudhan Red: r Skr.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Fl/o.plot Nc

-

1.12, IVLAs Colony.

Road No.12, Banjara Hrlls, Hyderabad

9. tt4/s.Gailala constructions private

Ltd., company havin,; his registered offices

at Plot No. 1 1

't 2, t\,4LAs Colony, Road No.1 2, Barrja

.a

Hills, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G.Madhusudhan Red i ,,

S/c,.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rl/o.plot Nr 1112, MLAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

10. M/s.Life Style Homes private

Ltd., company having h s registered offices at

Plot No.1112, MLAs Colony, Road No.t2, Banlar I Hilts, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director s ri. G.lr4ad husudhan Rerirl , S/o G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rfo.plot N.

.l

1.12, tvtlRs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

1'l .lv/s.GMR constructions Private Ltd., company having hi: registered otfices at

Plot No.1112, I\,4LAs Cotony, Road No..12, Banja.r Hilrs, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director sri.G.Madhusudhan Redc, , S/o G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rl/o.plot Nc,. t.l 12, MLAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

12. M/s.Harini Resorts & Properties private

Ltd., company erving his registered

offices at Plot No 1112, N/LA. Colony, Road No.12, Barj rra Hiits, UyO"eraOaa,

represented by their Director Sri.G. Madhusudhan Reddi S/o.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rt/o.plot Nc.

.l

12, tULAs Colony,

Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

13. lv/s.GGR Properties Pnvate Ltd., company having hrs ergistered offices at

Plot No.'l 112, IVLAs Cotony, Road No.12, Banjarz Hiils, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G. Madhusudhan Reddy S/o.G.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Rl/o.plot No

-

12, MLAs Colony,

Road No.1 2, Banjara Hitls, Hyderabad

14.M/s.Mouna constructions pvt.Ltd.,

company having his egistered offices at

Plot No.1112, tMLAs Colony, Road No.12, Binjarr Hills;, Hyderabad,

represented by their Director Sri.G.l\iladhusudhan Redd,r rs/o.13.Ram Reddy,

aged 48 years, Occ Director of Company, Fyo.plot No

. .l

12, tr,,llAs Colony,

Road No.'l 2, Banlara Hitls, Hyderabad

15. Mrs.Punnam Premaleela, wife of Punnam Satyanarayana Reddy, occ House-

wife, R/o.Buznoor Village, Huzoorabad, Karimnagar District

tO.Snair Yousuf, S/o.Shaik Mahmood, Occ: Business, R:/o'Himayath Nagar'

Hyderabad

tZ.av.Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o.A.Venkat Reddy, Occ: Business, FVo'H'No'

'1 -33, tr/lalkaram Village, Chevella, Hyderabad

(Respondents 2to16 are impleaded as per court order dated 25.O9.2012 in

WPTVPS 655312012, 16417 I 201 2,227 9512012 respectively)

...RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017

(WAMP. NO: 2826 OF 20171

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend

the operation of the orders of Learned single Judge dated: 02-06-2017 passed in

W.P.No.26495 of 2O11, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal

B

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

TWEEN

Sri Ayub Kamaal. S/o. Gulant MoinLrddin.

Aged about 65 years, Occ t_and t,ord

Represenred by his GpA Ilol(icr, \,1.A Jabbar,

S/o. Late Nlohd. K_haja. Aged abour 56 years,

Urc. l-5- l:/1. Krishna \ag.rr( olonr.

Rholakpur. Mrrshcerahad. IIrdcrrbrJ.

A\-D

I',DlIl tO:. r t/ttEst,oNt)t:\.1

f:, R/6,. !n2166r

l. The Distnct Collector. I IYderahad Disrricr.

Officc at Nampalh sration Road.

Hyd.:rabad.

2. The Deputy Director ofsurvc.r, & Land Rccords,

I{yderahad Disrricr al I l1 dcrabad

3. The Mandal Revenue Olficer.

Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District.

RESPONDENT

-( r\ppEtLLANTS

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

t0

II

t2

I]

l4

t5

l6

l1

iVJ/s. Sandesh Esrares (1,) t_rd..

M(..Gajala Rarn Reddy propenies

(p) LlJ.,

Ws.Mouna Estates

private

Ltd.,

M/s. Sandesh Constructions pvt.

Lrd.

Ivl/s.CVR Propenies privatc

[,td_.

Nfls. Mouna Properties privare

Lrd

M/s. G.S.R. Properties privare

Ltd.,

M/s. Gajjala Constructions private

Ltd

M/s. Life Sryle tlomes l)rivare LILJ..

M/s. CMR Construclions pnvilc

Lld..

Mh. Harir:i Resorts & l,ropenics pri\arc

Lld

,

M,/s. GGR Propenies privale

Lrd..

M/s. Mouna Construcrions p!,1.

L;d..

I8

l9

Mrs. Pulrrant Premaleela, W/o. puruam

Safy^nara),ana Reddy, Occ: Ilotr;t.u

Village. HuzoorabaJ, Kxfl tnnaAar Di5trrct.

Shaik.Yousuf, S/o. Shaik Mrlrrnood. Occ: Brrsirrcss, R-/o. IJimayath Nasar. Il I

A.V. Jagan Motran Rcddv. S,o A Vg6ti31 R.ddi. O;., ;;;1;r:';i":'i;.i

Villagc. Chevclla, HrcJeraiad.

r,rbad

-31. Malkararn

(Respondcnts No 4 to l9 are nor nccessarv pa(ies

in tlris petitior)

(

. .. RESPONDENT:j R lsPor.rD[NTS

I

i

;

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

Collector, Hyderabad District, to take all steps necessary for giving effect to the

report submitted by Deputy Director, Survey

.

Land record vide Letter No.

44139212002 dated 05. 09.2009

Counsel for the AppellantSRI P. SRIDHAR REDDY SPECIAL GP

THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. VEDULA VENKATARAMANA

SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS

The Court made the following: ORDER

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL/ {GANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHAT'T ICHARYA

AND

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN - (UMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1528 OF 201?

DATE: LO.O4.2O26

Between

The District Collector,

Hyderabad District, arnd 2 others

. r\ppellants

And

Sri Ayub Kamaal, Hydcrabad ancl 16 others

Respondents

Mr- P. Sridhar Recldl , tl.rc learned Spccial Govcrrlnrent Pl,. 1:r r(presentins

the learncd Advociltc Ger.lcr.rl appeanng lor the appellauts.

Mr. Vedula Vcnl(atarant.lnl, learnccl Scnior Cour-rscl

respondent No. 1/rvrit pet it roncr.

JUDGMENT:

r ')rescnting thc

(l)er Ilon'blc Justi('c Moushuml Bhattaclt.r l]l

1. The Writ Appeal ariscs out ol an order da..< ) 02.06.2017

passed by a learned Single Judgc of this CoLlrt, rrs llis Lordship

then was, in W.P.No.2(r495 ol 2O11.

2. 'I'he responclent No. 1/writ petitioner filccl \V '.No.26495 of

2O11 sceking ir Writ of Manclarnus agilinst tltc :ilure of the

appellants, namely, thc District Collector, IJ., l,:ratrad, the

Deputy Direr:tor o[ Snrvcy al)d Lan(l Record s, ll ,, lerabad, and

the Mandal licvenue OiTiccr, Colkonrla Manclal. F vclerabad, ir-r

2

amending the concerned Revenue and Survey Records by

recording the petitioner,s name, in compliance with the order

passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.p.No.3766

of 1997 and aflirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.435 of

7997. The writ petitioner also challenged the appellants, failure

to conduct peg marking on the writ petitioner,s land,

admeasuring 6403 squze meters in Survey No.144,

corresponding to TSLR No. i2/ 1 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda

Mandal, Hyde rabad District, as illcgal and arbitrary.

3. By the impugncd ordcr datcd 02.06.2017, the learned

Single Judgc allowecl W. p.No.26495

of 2011 filed by the

respondent No. l/u,rit petitioner and directed the

appe llants

/ State of Tclangana to amcnd the concerned Revenue

and Survey Records by recording the name of the writ

petitioner. The learned Single Judge further directed the

appellants to put peg-marks on the writ petitioner,s land as per

the Survey Report of thc respondent No.2/Deputy Director,

Surr.ey and Land Records, Hyderabad (appellant No.2 herein)

dated 05.09.20O9 forthu,ith.

4 Several Writ Petitions were disposed of by the impugnecl

Common Ordcr. Thc preselt t Writ Appeal challenges the

3

impugned Common Order insofar as it relates to

r

/.p.No.26495

of 2O1l filed by the respondent No. 1 .

5. The learned Speciat Government pleader a;;p rrring for the

appellants argues that the respondent No. 1/r., it petitioner

played fraucl on the Court bv misrepresenting r,l .r facls. It is

contended that the petitioner's entire claim is lrased on a

Certihcate of Sale dated ,2.04. 199 i for an cxt(.r L. of hcs.3_37

guntas of land in Suruey No.l29 /T I ancl thert th,. I)ctrtioner is

mischievously claiming Acs.6-37 guntas in thc : unc Survey

Number without any documentary evidence. [t is a r r, contended

that the petitioner sold the entire Acs.3-37 gunl r; of lancl in

Survey No.i44 to one RVS Chowdary under a Srr : Deed uide

document No.l 192 o[ 1962, there by e_ inrr ishing the

petitioner's title. The Special Government plc: ler further

submits that the petitioncr concealed this alien:rri ,rr frcm the

Writ Court and that the Surveyor submittecl ar . tlse Rcport

without any authority or direction from thc Cour.t It is zrlso

argued that the petitioner is attempting to grn r th,: 12r,16

belonging to the Government since the property sr I

,

r.ycd forms

part of Survey No.403.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the -:spondent

No.1/writ petitioner places relevant paragraph:; frorn the

4

counter-affidavit filed by the appellants to the Writ Petition

averring that'the Court may pass such other orders as it deems

ht and proper and in the interest of justice'. Senior Counsel

submits that this averment shows that the appellants are not

seriously challenging the impugned Common Order. Senior

Counsel further refers to the Surve_v Report dated O5.O9.2O09

and urges that the said Suruey Report does not confer or divest

the State/ appellants of any subsisting title and that the sole

objective of sunrey and demarcation is the physical

identihcation of the land through pcg marking.

7. We have heard tl-re competing submissions made on

behalf of the appellants and thc respondent No.1/writ

petitioner

8. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the Writ Appeal

are as follows:

9. The writ petitioner purchased Acs.6,37 guntas of lancl in

Survey No.l29/7'1, subsequently renumbered as Survey No.144

of Shaikpet Village, Banjerra Hills, in .rn auction held by the

Settlement Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay, on

22.04.7961. Pursuant to the said auction, a Sale Certihcate was

issued in favour of the writ petitioner specifically delineating the

boundaries of the property.

5

10. One Narain @ Narayan Bhavanani filed C.LNo. 118 of

1968 before the III Additional Judge, City { ivil Court,

Secunderabad, seeking perpetual injunction agi]:r st the writ

petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs . . 15 llurltas,

bearing Plot No.7, Municipal No.8-2- l2O/1O2. ;itr-rated in

Survey No. 151/4, Road No.3, Jubilee Hilts, H1.tt, r abad. The

Suit was decreed on 20.03.1971. Challenging ,lr, s21'',., ,n.

writ pctitioncr hled an Appeal (C.C.C.A.No.94 o1'1)72) bcfore

the High Court. The Appeal was disposed of on I I.0:r.1975,

whereby the decree was modified by adding lre rvords:

'exclu ding the tiangular cone added in pencil t me usuring

Ac.O.16 gts onla and uhich ls said to be ouerlappirtg it Sy.No. 144

in Ex.B-19' at the e nd of Clause No.1 of the decrr:r' r;f the Trial

Cou rt.

1 1. Narayan Bhavanani then filed E.P.No.45 l

exectrtion of the decree in O.S.No.1 18 of 1968 ancl f r

possession of Plot No.7 bearing Municipal No.8

During the pendency of the Execution Proceedin:

Bhavanani passed away and his legal representati,,

record. The decree was executed and possession r,. i

to thr: legal representatives of the plaintiff includin.i

Bhavzrnani, wife of Narayan Bhavanani.

1975 for

clelivery of

t-12O / t02.

; . Nirrayan

:i came on

s cle livered

lu4rs. Laxmi

6

12. The writ petitioner hted E.A.No.38 of 1976 in E.P.No.4S of

1975 seeking redelivery of possesslon of property in Survey

No.144 to him contending that the Civil Court granted

permanent injunction and therefore the question of delivering

possession to the piaintiff does not arise. The E.A. was allowed

and redelivery of possession of property u,as ordered in favour of

the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereafter hled E.P.No.33

of 1981 for execution of the order passed in E.A.No.38 of 1976

and the said E.P. was also allowed.

13. Laxmi Bhavanani filed C.R.P.No. 1535 of 1972 against the

order of redelivery passed in E.A.No.38 of 1976. The C.R.P. was

dismissed and the said order became tinal. Accordingly, a

portion of the land in Survey No. 144 rvas delivered to the writ

petitioner.

14. Subsequently, Laxmi Bhavanani filecl E.A.No.15 of 1984

in E.P.No.33 of 1981 lor redelivery of possession of Acs.3.15

guntas of land (described as Plot No.7 lorming part of Survey

No.151/4) asserting that the said land belongs to Narayan

Bhavanani. The Executing Court found that the r,vrit petitioner

had taken possession of Acs.2.39 guntas of land belonging to

Narayan Bhavanani over and above Acs-O,16 guntas of land,

which was already delivered. Consequently, the trxecuting

-

7

Court allowed tr.A.No.15 of 1984 directing the wril retirioner to

redeliver the possession of Acs.3.15 guntas of lit I I in Suney

No. 151/4, exclucling a triangular portion admeasu- rg Acs.0. 16

guntas overlapping with Survey No. 144.

15. Challenging the order passed in E.A.No. 15 c

-

19!)4. the

writ petitioner filed C.R.p.No.317 of 199O and tht sarlrc was

dismissed. The writ petitioner carried the matter t() : rt Slrpreme

Court in Civil Appeal No.5024 of 7991which was rlis ;ost.rl of on

I 8. I 2. 199 1 u,ith a clarification that the triangula r porr ion of

Acs.O. i6 guntas of land shall be treated as the prr,1 r.rt,1, of thc

writ petitioner and it should be in his possession.

16. The Writ Petitioner filed W.p.No.3766 of 1997 r irestioning

G.O.Ms.No. 461, by which the Government allottr r 9Oli9 sq.

mts. of surplus land belonging to Mr. Narayan llh r.yanirni in

favour of the Andhr:r pradesh

Film Development ::rporation

("Film Development Corporation.). The State, rl r: Special

Officer, Urban Land Ceiling (,ULC), the Collector, lyclerabad

District, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hyderabacl iL Lrl ttre Ap

State Film Development Corporation were parties r the said

Writ Petition.

17. The Writ Petition was allowed on 21.O3.1997 rrlyirLg on

the view taken by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal I o.5O24 of

8

1991 that a part of Sy.No.15L /4 in Plot No-7 juts into Sy.No. 144

in a triangular shape and cannot be treated as the land of

Narayan Bhavanani. The Writ Court also held that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh or any of the respondents to the

Writ Petition cannot have any claim in respect of the land in

Sy.No.144, which belongs to A)'ub Kamal.

18. The Special Ofhcer, ULC, along with three others, filed

W.A.No.435 of 1997 , which was dismissed on 04.O7 .1,997 . A

Review Petition Iiled against the aforesaid order was also

subsequently dismissed.

19. The Writ Petitioner hled W.P.No.26413 of 20O I against the

Government and Smt. Laxmi Bhavanani and her family

members questioning the FIR registered by the Station House

Olficer ('SHO'), P.S. Banjara Hills and for a direction to refrain

the respondents from interfering with his possession of the land

in Sy.No.129l71 (o1d Sy.No.144).

20. A compromise was entered into betvveen Ayub Kamal and

Smt. Laxmi Bhavanani during the pendency of the Writ Petition

and the Writ Petition was hence disposed of on I ),.1O.2OO2

directing the District Collector, Hyderabad and the

Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, to

conduct a Survey and demarcate Plot No.7 in Sy.No. 151/4

I

belonging to the Bhavanani family ald the land rr Sy'.No. 144

(old) belonging to A]rub Kamal

21 . The Dcputy Director, Survey and [,2 r rl Iiecords,

conducted tlie Survey as per the directions of thr: I igh Court in

W.P.No.26413 of 2001 and submitted a Il 'lrort dated

05.09.2009 to the Collector, Hyderabad.

22. The Survey Report stated , inter alia, that th,'r : is no piece

of Government land between Plot No.7 and Sy.No. L 14. Furthcr,

the southern part of Sy.No.144, after excluding t te road and

buildings, was demarcated as 6403 sq. mts. (irr lruour of thc

petitioner) and 76O sq. mts. as Government land.

23. Ayub Kamal accordingly hled W.P.No.26495

'tf

2C)11 (the

Writ Petition in the present Appeal) seeking impl,: nent.ation of

the Survey conducted by the Deputy Director ,r r f,5.09.2o09

and for putting peg-marks in his land in accorcllr. r:e vzith the

Su rvey Report.

24. The family members of Narayan Bhavanl r i al:;o filed

W.P.No.l7503 of 2O15 contending that the Survey I .r:port clated

05.09.2009 cannot not be implemented. However, 1te srLid Writ

Petition was dismissed by the impugned c -ler clated

02.06.2017.

r0

25. It would be clear from the above narration of facts that

the issue in the Writ Petition was essentially a dispute between

the Writ Petitioner (A1'ub Kamal) and Narayan Bhavanani.

However, in the present Appeal, the State has contested the

impugned order essentially on the ground that it could not urge

these points before the Division Bench in W.A.No.435 of 1997

and that the Writ Petitioner's claim for demarcation of land

cannot be sustained.

26. It is also significant that Narayan Bhavanani is no longer

in the picture as the Writ Appeals hled by his family, namely

W.A.Nos.166O of 2077 and 7646 of 20L7 , were subsequently

dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated 19 .O3.2O24 and

07.06.2024, respectively. Hence, there is no contest made by

Narayan Bhavanani's family to the claim of the petitioner in

respect of the subject land of 6403 sq. mts., as found in the

Survey Report, as on date.

27. Moreover, the objections raised by the appellants / Statc in

respect of the Survey Report of O5.09.2OO9 have been raised for

the frrrst time in the Writ Appeal rn 2017. The appellants havc

in fact disputed the authority of the Deputy Director, Survey

and Land Records, to conduct the Survey or referred to a

Revenue Survey Village Map for demarcation of Sy.No.144

ll

without challenging the said Survey Report by an ndependent

Writ Petition. The State has also disputed the hr Jings of the

Supreme Court with regard to Ex. B 19 (described t [- : exhibit) as

not being binding on it.

28. [t is further significant that the appellants dil notpray for

dismissal of the Writ Petition even though thelr rere parties

before thc learned Single Judge and in fact have ma le a specific

statement in their Counter Affidavit that the Appe a Cotrrt may

be pleased to pass any orders as it deems fit in tl-r ' intr:rest of

justice. The appellants have not filed any Additit ral Oounter

therealter to modify their stand.

29. Hence, u,e are of the considered view that th

.

appellants

cannot disown the Survey Report of the Deputy Dir: ::or, Survey

and Land Rccords, dated O5.O9.2O09, since the zrid Survey

Report has not been challenged by the State or st terst:ded at

any point of time thereafter.

30. The contentions raised on behalf of the erp.,r:llants are

also untenable since the only direction given by lre learned

Single Judge was to implement the Survey Report { rrd nothing

more. It is worthwhile to mention that implemer tation of a

Survey Report would not confer or denude the appel ants of any

right in respect of title to the land. The object < f a Survey

-

t2

demarcatron is only to locate the land for the purpose of

identihcation by putting peg marks. Hence, it is

incomprehensible as to how the appellants would be

prejudicially affected by the directions given in the impugned

order since they have not claimed any title to the subject land of

6403 sq. mts. in R.S.No.144/129/71' In any event, the

impugned order does not prevent the State from making a claim

with regard to its title. The appellants have in fact admitted to

their failing to bring facts and documents before the High Court

in the earlier Writ Petition and Writ Appeal'

31. We also cannot ignore the settled position in law that the

Appellate Court must restrain itself and interfere with the

judgment passed by a learned Single Judge in intra-Court

Appeals only if the judgment is perverse or suffers from an error

apparent in law1.

32. On the other hand, S.P. Chengaluarayo Naidu (dead) by

LRs u. Jagannath (dead) bg LRs and others2 does not assist the

appellants since paragraph No.5 of the said decision dwelt on

the abuse of the process of Court by property grabbers, tax

evaders and other unscrupulous persons. We fail to see how

the respondent No. 1/Wrlt Petitioner can Lre categorized under

I

Airports Authority Of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 11 1

'

(1994)1scci

l3

any of the aforesaid descriptions. Similarly, R. Htt, ttmaiah and-

another u. SecretarA to Gouernment of Karnate :o., l?euenue

Department and others:r observed that Courts o.:r: a duty to

remain vigilant to ensure that public property is I )t converted

into private property by unscrupulous elements. TL: apltellants

have not shown any act or evidence which would p: s;uacle us to

label the petitioner as unscrupulous or as ha,r ng

6;rabbed

public property through illegal means.

33. The Survey Report, which forms the basrs

Petitioner's claim, makes it evident from the very firs

that the Survey was conducted by the Deputy Dirr:

and Land Records on the specific instructions :ss

District Collector, Hyderabad by letter dated 20.O5.!

purpose of demarcating land belonging to Ayr :

Sy.No.129/71, correlating with Revision Sy.No. 144

Village. Hence, admittedly, the Writ petitioner

did rr

role in the conduct of the Survey or the findingsT r

arrived at therein. The Survey Report remains ar z

the Olfice of the Deputy Director as on date.

:f the Writ

, paragraph

tor, Survey

red by the

Ct09 for the

Karnal in

)r. Sh.aikpet

,1 have any

c,nclusions

i tabl,: with

34. Therefore, our reasons for conhrming the imp: lned order

of the iearned Single Judge may be summed up thus:

3

(zoro) s scc 2o3

t4

35. The Survey Report dated 05.09.2009, which formed the

subject matter of the Writ petition

filed by the respondent No. 1

with regard to demarcating the land belonging to the writ

petitioner in Sy.No. l29/71 (old) corresponding to Revision

Sy.No. 144 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court,

remained un-challenged by the State frorn 2OO9 till 2Ol5 (tilt

hling of the Writ Petition). The Survey was done at the behest of

lhe Stale respondenls, namely, the District Collector,

Hyderabad and the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records.

Hence, the State cannot ignore, dispute or seek to disown the

Survey Report. Further, the Survey Report clearly mentions

that 6403 square meters falling to the share of the petitioner is

distinct and different from 76O square meters which was

described as 'Government Land,. A map was enclosed with the

Survcy Report.

36. The only dispute made to the Survey Report came from

the Bhavanani family in the form of W.p.No.17503 of 20 15

which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.06.2017.

The Bhavanani's Appeals from the dismissal were subsequentiy

withdrawn on 19.O3.2024 and, 07.06.2024. Hence, the

recordings in the Survey Report attained hnality by reason of

being un-challenged from 2009 to 2O1S.

t5

37. The weakness of the appellants' argument 'r tuld also be

evident from the specihc stand taken in the Countt'; I,hat several

points could not be urged before the Division il'nch of this

Court in W.A.No.435 of 1997. [t is relevant that t te said Writ

Appeal hled by the Special Officer, Urban Lr nd Ceiling,

Hyderabad, was dismissed on 04.O7.1997. Aclr tLttedly, the

appellants clid not carry the challenge from t te order of

dismissal to the Supreme Court. This Corrr t also finds

substance in the argument made on behalf of the .r -it pctitioner

that the appe llants failcd to challenge the Survey . :port- within

the statutory timeframe of The Telangana Land F evenue Act,

13 17-Fasti.

38. Last and most important, the appellants ha,, ' not shown

any fundamental prejudice to the order passed l;'the Single

Judge whereby the concerned Authorities were rlir:r:ted to put

peg-marks on the land as per the Survey 1l ,port

dated

05.09.2009.

39. As already stated above, implementation of r-he Survey

Report would not denude the appellants of any vt:l-rabl<: rights

with regard to title to the land in question. 1'1rr app6llanl"

cannot be permitted at this belated stage to contes the Survey

Report dated 05.09.2009, when the concerr ed private

l6

respondents (Bhavanani's family) withdrew their Appeal to the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge' Hence,

there is no private party dispute in respect of the subject land of

6403 square meters claimed by the writ petitioners, as on date'

40. The above reasons persuade us to uphold the impugned

order dated 02.06.2O17 and conclude that the appellants have

not been able to establish any case against the said impugned

order to the extent of the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.26495 of 2O1 1.

47. W.A.No. 1528 of 2Ol7 , along with alt connected

applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs

//TRUE COPY//

SD/. N.SRIHARI

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1TwoCCstoTHEADVoCATEGENERAL'HighCourtfortheStateof

Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

one cc to sRl. VEDULA SRINIVAS Advocate [oPUC]

Two CD Copies

2

3

BM

PSK

CCTODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010412026

JUDGMENT

o

1EL,

i$,

+*

.\

L. i,

.,1

(L,l

ty

(_)

JS

WA.No.1528 ol 2017

ti0i

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITH(: UT COSTS

.{.

LL

6lLr;

1,.,,1+.ltt