Dismissed

A. Laxman Rao v. Boorla Amarnath and 8 Others

Telangana HC9 Feb 2021WA/407/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals against a common order that set aside a survey and demarcation of land in two survey numbers. The Court held that the Commissioner's direction to the Regional Deputy Director bypassed the hierarchy of survey officers prescribed by the circulars and was patently illegal; the single Judge's order required no interference. Appeals dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

A. Laxman Rao Vs Boorla Amarnath and 8 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶2

TUESDAY,^{THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} iwo rHousAND^{AND TWENTYoNE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTrcEA. RAJASHEKER REDDY}

¶5

rHE HoN'BLE^{or..luslf8rsHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶6

RIT APP^ALNos.400 D 7 F20

¶7

WA. No^. 400^{oF 2020}

¶8

Writ Appeal^{Under Clause15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against the} orderDated:1o.o2.2o2oin,wp.rvo.676,lof2018onthefileoftheHighCourt.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

Akku Laxman Rao, S/o. A.Swamy, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, Rro. H.No.I-l-l l3/4/3, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶11

ENT NO.7

¶12

AND

¶13

l. IDPL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, i A So,ciety regisrered under A.p. Cooperativc Societies Act, 1964, (TB.C No.869), having its registered oflice ar Vasantha Nagar, :

¶14

|Ild"^.i!1dt l"prysenred^{byir,s pre sident Sri K.V,RamaRao,} S/o. Sri K. Naga Bhushanam, Aged about 64 years, i R"/o, Flat No.102, Bhavani Towers, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500038.

¶15

The State ofTelangana,

¶16

...RESPONDEN'ITWRIT PETITIONER

¶17

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

¶18

Revenue Departrnent, Secrotariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

The Commissioner,

¶20

Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶21

The Joint Collector, Medohal-Malkaj giri D istrict, Keesara, Telangona State.

¶22

The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶23

The Assistant Director, Suwey and Land Records,

¶24

Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri Districc

¶25

7, Inspector of Survey, Survey & Land Records, Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distict.

¶26

Akku Srinivas Rao, S/o. A, Swamy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.l-t-l l314/1, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶27

I t I i ;

¶28

ID nz

¶29

9.G. PratapReddy,^{S/0.Narasimha Reddy,} About68^years,Occupation:^Business, R/o. Plot No.155,Dhanalakshmi^Colony, MahendraHills,EastMaredpally, Secunderabad-500026.
10.K.Venkateswar Rao,S/o.lateK.Seshaiah, Agedabout46years,Occupation:Business, R/o.H.No.79lC,Addagutta Society, Kukatpally,Hyderabad-500072.
Il.Smt.DanduRamavathi,Wo.Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about5lyears,Oocupation: Housewife, R/o. D-46, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-500038.
12. Smt.K.Sharadha,Represented by herGPAl{older, M/s. NavaNirmanAssociates,Represented byis Managing Partner,G.Raj Kumar,Sio. G.Yadagiri, Agedabout 36 years,Occupation:Business, R/o.H.No.2-22-219lA,JayanthNagar Colony, KPHB,Hyderabad-500072.
13.GuramBharagav Reddy,Representedby his GPAHolder, M/s. NavaNirmanAssociates,Representedby its ManagingPartner,G. RajKumar,S/o.G.Yadagiri, Aged about36 years,Occupation:Business, R./o.H.No.2-22-219/A,JayanthNagar Colony, KPHB,Hyderabad-500A72.
14. Smt.D.Sailaja,Wo.D.Shankaraiah, Aged about52 years,Occupation:Housewife, fuo.t.l.No.l-8-530/C302,PrasannaResidency, StreetN0.7,Chikkadpally,Hyderabad-500020.
15. Ch.Nageshwar Rao,S/o.LateKrishna Murthy, Aged about50 years,Occupation:Business, R"io.H.No.26,F-403.Sarad'aResidency, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-50003g.
I6.Srnt. ^Gulipalli^{Koreswari,Wo.GulipalliAppa Rao,} lVo. D.No.t6-2-100/876,LIc_599; lhlatli^{Nagar,BHEL,Ramachandrapuram,} Hyderabad-502032.
17.SriBinuSrikanth,S/o.LateB.Ramas*,amy, Reprcsented byhisSpA Holder,M,Shankar'Lingam, S/o.LateSriJ\4.Dharmaiah, Agedabout65yeari' 9..u?1tl9r'^{ReriredEmployee,No.5_3_17i,} ShanthiNagarColony, Hydirabad_500072.

19.SriV.SrinivasaRaju,S/o.V.Jogi Raju, Agedabout 53 years,R/o.C-65, MadhuraNagar, Hyderabad_50003g.

¶30

s ?

¶31

Smt.G.swetha"Wio. Lingaiah, R/o.H,No.1-l82lC/206, Perfsct Towers, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049.
I. VaniSwupna,Wio.V.Ravinder Reddy, RJo.Plot No.877,2"Floor, VasanthNagar,Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085.
22. SriBoorla Amaranath,^{S/o,B.Kanthaiah,} Aged about48years, R/o.H.No.1-8-519/10/l-7, FlatNo.303, PumaGayathriResidency, Chikkadpalli,i"lyderabad-500020.
23, Smt. WaheedaBegum, Wio,^{ShaikMohd.Usman,} R/o.MIC-634,BHEL,Ramachandrapuram, Flyderabad-500032.
24.Smt.Narla Premalatha,Wo.N.LaxmanKumar, Occupation:Housewife, R/o.H,No.4-4-209, KamanRoad,Peddapalli, KarimnagarDistrict.
25. Sri Ch. Srinivasa Reddy, Sio. Ch. VenkataSubbaReddy, B"/o.H.No.i6-3-14013,PlotNo,4l2, VasanthNagar,HyderNagar, Kukatpally,Hyderabad-500085.
26. SriA.f{aviBabu,S/o..4.8,Puma ChandraRao, Agedabout49years,R/o,303, InduVillaApartments,KalyanNagar, Hyderabad-500038.
27. Sri B.V.S.Nagesrvara Rao, S/o.Sri BodapatiSatyanarayana, Agedabout 40years,fuo.LLNo.4-25, JuttaVari Veedhi,Chagallu, WestGodavariDistrict-534342.
28,SriSureshBabuAmara,S/o.A.Ananda BabuRao, Aged about34years, R/o.H.No.2-l-7518, TempleStreet,Narasamopet, ConturDistrict-522601.
29. Sri VenkannaAnumandla,S/o.NarasimhaReddy, RJo.FtatNo.l04. Silpa RosidencyI , Silpa Park, Kondapur, Hyderabad500082.
30. Sri KalasaniMohanReddy, Slo.BakkiReddy, R/o. FlatNo.l04, Silpa Residency-l,SilpaPark" Kondapur, I{yderabad-500082.
31. Smt.K.SwathiPriyanka, W/o.K. Vijaya Kumar, Representedby her GPAHolder, K. Vijaya Kumar,S/o.VenkateswaraRao, RJo.LIC-238, 3dFloor, 7ftPhaseKPHB Colony
,, Kukatpally,Hyderabad-500085.

¶32

q 1

¶33

Smt. G. Aruna Jyothi, Wo. G. Rajender, Aged about 62 years, Rl/o. Plot Nos.86 & BT,Flat No.404, Phase lll, Jayalakshhi Nagar, Beerumguda, Ameenpur l\rlandal, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶34

Sri Tangirala Gopala Krishna Kumar, S/o. T. Nageswara Rao, Ri./o- Flat No.322, Block-B, Sri Sai Krupa Apartments, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500049.

¶35

...Respondents/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 & 8 to 33

¶36

A NO: 1 OF 2020

¶37

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 order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6761 of 2018 datedi 10.02.2020.

¶38

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS

¶39

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B. VENKATESWARA RAO

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No. 8: SRI R. SUSHANTH REDDY

¶42

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.9 to 22: SRI B. VIJAY KUMAR

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 22 to 33:----*-

¶44

WRIT APPEAL NO: 407 OF 2020

¶45

Writ Appeal Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Order Dated: 1010212020 in WP. No. 39279 of 2017 on the file of the High Court.

¶46

Between:

¶47

4.^{Laxman Rao, S/o. A. Swamy, Aged about 65 years,Occ.Business,} Fl/o. H.No.1-1-1 13/43, RTC X Roads, Hyilerabad.

¶48

...AppellanU Respondent No.6

¶49

AND

¶50

1 Boorla Amarnath, S/o. B. Kanthaiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 1-8-51911011-7, Flat 303, Pooma Gayathri Residency, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 20.

¶51

2 Birru Srikanth, S/o- late B. Ramaswamy, Represented by his SPA Holder, M. Shankar Lingam, S/o. Iate Sri M. Dharmaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occupation. Retired Employee, Fyo. 5-3-172, Shanti Nagar Colohy, Hyderabad - 500072.

¶52

3 G. Raj Kumar, S/o. G. Yadagiri, Aged about 36 years, Occupation. Managing Partner of M/s. Nava Nirman Associates, H. No.2-22-2191A, Jayanagar Colony, KPHB, Hyderabad -72.

¶53

.... Respondents/ Writ Petitioners

¶54

4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Joint Collector, Medchal [Malkajgiri District, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶56

6" The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Telangana State.

¶57

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

¶58

-t2'

¶59

B. lVis. IDPL Employees Co-op.House Building Society, Rep. by its^president, K.V. Rama Rao, S/o. K. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 65 years, TBC # 869, Vasant Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶60

A, Srinivasa Rao, S/o. A. Swamy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-1 13/43, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶61

...Respondents/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 & 7

¶62

lA No. 'l OF 2020

¶63

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 order of the learned Single Judge in WP. No. 37279 of 201 7 dated: 1OlO2l2O2O.

¶64

lA No.2 OF 2020

¶65

Between

¶66

Amara Suresh Babu, S/o. Ananda Babu Rao, Rl/o. Plot No. BB7, Gopalraonagar, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶67

... Petitioner/ Proposed Respondent No.10

¶68

AND

¶69

1 A. Laxman Rao, S/o. A. Swamy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-1'13143, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶70

.... AppellanU Respondent No.6

¶71

2 Boorla Amarnath, S/o. B. Kanthaiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 1-B-51911O11-7, Flat 303, Pooma Gayathri Residency, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 20.

¶72

Birru Srikanth, S/o. late B. Ramaswamy, Represented by his SPA Holder, Ir/. Shankar Lingam, S/o. late Sri lvl. Dharmaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occupation. Retired Employee, R/o. 5-3-172, Shanti Nagar Colohy, Hyderabad - 500072.

¶73

G. Raj Kumar, S/o. G. Yadagiri, Aged about 36 years, Occupation. Ir/anaging Partner of [,4/s. Nava Nirman Associates, H.No.2-22-2191A, Jayanagar Colony, KPHB, Hyderabad -72.

¶74

.... Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ Writ Petitioners

¶75

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶76

The Joint Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶77

The Regional Deputy Director; Survey and Land Records, Telangana State.

¶78

B. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, IVledchal - Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

¶79

lV/s. IDPL Employees Co-op.House Building Society, Rep. by its President, K.V Rama Rao, S/o. K. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 65 years, TBC # 869, Vasant Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶80

10.A. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. A. Swamy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-'l-1 13/43, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶81

...Respondents/ Respondent No. 7

¶82

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 grant leave to file interlocutory application for impleading as respondent No.10 in W.A,No.407 of 2020.

¶83

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶84

/' ['

¶85

Petition under Section 16-4 of Writ Rules, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the proposed respondent No.1 0 to implead as respondent No.1 0 in W.A.No.407 of 2020.

¶86

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS

¶87

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. VIJAYA KUMAR

¶88

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: ---

¶89

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶90

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶91

Counsel forthe Respondent No.9: SRI R. SUSHANTH REDDY

¶92

The Court delivered the following:

¶93

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶94

WRIT APPEAL Nos.4OO and 4O7 of 2O2O

¶95

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶96

Since the facts of the case and the issue involved in both these writ appeals are similar and since both these writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by a learned single Judge oF this Court, both these writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶97

2, Both these appeals are filed challenging the common order, dated 10.02.2020, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.39279 of 2077 and 6761 of 2018.

¶98

We have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals; Sri B.Venkateshwara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.400 of 2020; Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.B in W.A.No.400 of 2020 and respondent No.9 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondent Nos.2 to 7 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 and otficial respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.407 of 2020; and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.B in W.A.No.407 of 2020. We have perused the record.

¶99

The sole appellant in both these appeals (A.Laxman Rao) is the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.39729 of 2017 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.400 of 2020 is the sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018. Respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶100

lRR & Dr.s. JJ \ I \o!.l00lt t01ot:0lrr

¶101

in W.A.No.407 of 2O2O are^{the petitioners in W.P.No.39279of 20t7.} Petitioner Nos.1 and 2^{in W.P.No.39279 of 2OL7 are respondentNos'} 22 and 17 respectively^{in W.P.No.676tof 2OlB. Sole petitioner in} W.P.No.6761 of 2018 is^{respondent No.5 in W.P.No.39279of 2077.} Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in^{W'P.No.39279 of 2017 are respondent} Nos.7 & B in W.P.No.676l of 2018.^{The issue in both the writ} petitions in which the impugned common order^{was passedis} conducting survey and^proposing to^{undertake demarcationof land in} Survey Nos.160 and 161 of^{Hydernagar Village of Kukatpally Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District.^{For clarity,the partieswould be hereinafter} referred to as^per their array^{in W.P.No.39279 of 2-0L7.}

¶102

Brief fac of W.P.No.3927 of 2Ot7

¶103

5, In this writ^petition, there are^{three petitioners. Petitioner} Nos.1 and 2 claim to be absolute^{ownersand possessors of house} bearing No.16-2-100/35,^{plot Nos.35 and B7B situatedat The Gopal} Nagar Co-operative House Building Society^{Limited,Hydernagar} Village, GHMC Kukatpally Circle,^{BalanagarMandal, Ranga Reddy} District, under registered sale deeds.^{Petitioner No.3 is the developer} of Plot Nos.192 and 193 situated in the^{aforesaidSociety. These} plots form part of layout made on land in Sy.Nos.14B to 155 of Hydernagar Village. Petitioners trace history of^flow of^title. According to the^petitioners, respondent No.6^(appellant in^{both the} writ appeals) made an application, dated 24.05.2014, to^the Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land^{Records,Hyderabad} (hereinafter referred to as'the Commissioner') for comprehensive survey of lands in Survey Nos.14B, 149, 159, 160, 161 and¹⁶² and to re-fix the correct boundaries of his land in Survey No.160 of

¶104

ARR & I)r.SA. JJ }}A \os.J00 & 107 of l0l0

¶105

Hydernagar Village, stating that there is lot of difference in boundaries shown in Survey Nos,160 and 161. On the said application, the Commissioner endorsed directing the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (hereinafter referred to as 'RDD') to conduct survey of Survey Nos.160 & 161 of Hydernagar Village. Based on the said endorsement, survey was conducted without serving notice to the petitioners and the RDD submitted report in Rc.No.A5/165/20t4, dated 24.L0.2014, to the Commissioner. While so, against the said report of the RDD, the 5th respondent (sole petitioner in W.P.No.676L of 2018), i.e., The IDPL Employees Co-operative House Building Society preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide Case No.A4l901/2015. The loint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide order, dated 25.10.2017, dismissed the appeal with a direction to the RDD to show the boundaries of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village, in accordance with his report, dated 24.10.2014, and in pursuance to the notice No.A5 /337/20L5 issued by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, dated 13.03.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records (hereafter referred to as 'Assistant Director'), issued notice, dated 75,71.2017, to respondent Nos.6 and 7 and others, informing the ,late of demarcation/spot inspection as 22.LL.2017 at 11:00 AM. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the Joint Collector, dated 25.10.2017, and the report of the RDD, daled 24.70.2014, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, t6 and 3004 of the Constitution of India and a consequential direction to set aside the notice of the Assistant Directqr, dated 15.11.2017, for demarcation/spot inspection.

¶106

,\RR & Dr.SA.,lJ $A \os.l00 & aol of2020

¶107

¶108

Brief facts in W.P.No.6761^{of 2018:}

¶109

Sole petitioner in^{this writ petition is IDPL EmployeesCo-} operative Housing society^{Limited. Petitionersociety claims to be} the owner of^{Acs.65.00 guntasof land in Sy.No'163of Hydernagar} Village, having acquired^{title to the property by virtue of final decree} proceedings in c.s.No.14 of 1958.^{Petitioner society further claims} that^possession of^{the property was deliveredto it by the District} Court, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict, in E.P.Nos.L9of l9B7 and 10 of 1990'} According to the^{petitionersociety, it obtained ordersto convertland} from agricultural^{purpose to non-agriculturalpurpose. As the matter} stood thus, the^{petitioner Society was servedwith Survey Notice} bearing No.A5/165/2014,^{dated20.06.20t4,proposingto conduct} survey of land in^{Sy.Nos.160 and 161 on an application,dated} 24.05.20t4, made by^{A.Laxman Rao (appellantin both the writ} appeals). Initially,^{surveywas to be conducted on 27.06.2014, but} later it was^{postponed to 02.07.2014. Petitioner Society claims to} have opposed the survey^{by filing objections on 25.06.2014'Since} no orders were^{passedor communicatedto the Petitioner Societyon} the objections filed by^{it, the petitioner Society filed an application} under Right to Information^{Act and came to know that the RDD} submitted his report,^{dated 24.10.2014, to the Commissioner'While} so, on a common application,^{dated 28.02'2015, made by 7th and Bth} respondents (A.Laxman Rao &^{A.Srinivasa Rao) requestingto} expedite fixation of^{boundaries by ignoringthe objectionsfiled by the} petitioner Society, the Assistant Director^{issued noticeon} 73.02.2015/3.3.2015^{proposing to demarcate land in Survey Nos.160} and 161. Aggrieved by the^same, on^{11'03.2015,the petitioner}

¶110

) WA ALtR Nos.{00 & Dr.SA. & 407 of2020JJ

¶111

Society filed an appeal before the Commissioner in File No.F7/344120t5, but the Commissioner, by his order, dated 18.03.2015, while observing that the petitioner Society should avail remedy of appeal beFore Joint Collector, stayed further action on the notice, dated 13.02.2015/03.03.2015, without prejudice to the rights of either parties. Accordingly, the petitioner Society preferred appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.A4l901/2015. Simultaneously, the petitioner Society also preferred appeal against report of RDD, dated 24.10.2014, before the Commissioner. In view of filing of appeal before the loint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, against the notice dated t3.02.20L5/ 03.03.2015, the Commissioner, by order, dated 06.10.2015, closed the appeal filed before him, by continuing earlier interim order till the disposal of appeal by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, passed final orders in Case No.A4l90ll2015 on 25.10.2017, overruling the objections raised by the petitioner Society and further directed the RDD to show boundaries of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village in accordance with his report, dated 24.10.2014 and in pursuance of notice, dated 13.03.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, issued notice, dated 15.77.2017, intimating the date of demarcation/spot inspection as 22.LL.2077 at 11:00 AM. In this writ petition, the petitioner Society sought a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records, i.e., the order of the Joint Collector, dated 25.10.2077, and the report of the RDD, dated 24.IO.2014, and quash the same and a consequential direction to declare the notice of the Assistant Director, dated 15.11.2077, for demerc6tion/spot inspection, as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and

¶112

'rRR &^D..51.JJ $ A \os.100 & 107 of:0:U

¶113

¶114

vitiated by the^principles of natural^justice.

¶115

A learned single Judge of this Court,^{vide commonorder,dated}

¶116

70.02.2020, allowed both the writ^{petitions, holdingas follows:}

¶117

"The Commissioner and the^{RDDfailed to notice that request} to conduct survey was not bona fide.^{There was clear} suppression of earlier survey and decision of^the Commissioner. Thus, equities are against^{respondents 6 and7'} The Commissioner could not have entertained^such application, even assuming that such course^{is permissible.}

¶118

It is also seen from material on record that^{respondents 6 &} 7 filed O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014^{pending in the Court of} Principal District Judge. Nothing^{prevented them from moving} appropriate application to conduct survey. When there^{is inter-} se dispute pending adjudication by^{competentCourt,} administrative authorities should hold^{their handsand allow} persons to get their disputes resolved by the competent Court.

¶119

For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are^allowed. However, it is made clear that there is no expression^of opinion on merits and the aspects discussed^{herein aboveare} only to tesf fhe validity of the order of Commissioner^for Survey Settlements and Land Records directing^RDD to conduct survey, RDD conducting survey and submitting^his report, and consequential orders of the Commissioner and the loint Collector. "

¶120

Aggrieved by the aforementioned common order, dated L0.02.2020, respondent No.6 in W.P.No.39279 of^{2Ot7 who is also} respondent No.7 in W.P.No.6861 of 2018,^{(A.LaxmanRao)filed} both these appeals.

¶121

The learned counsel for the appellant in both these appeals would contend that the impugned common order, dated 10.02.2020, is contrary to facts, weight of evidence and^{probabilities} of the^case. The learned single ludge failed to see that there is no cause of action for filing the writ^petitions inasmuch as conducting of survey would not defeat the rights of any^person nor would cause any legal injury to anybody. Survey of private lands by the authorities oF the Department of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, is permissible.

¶122

ARR & D..S,..,.1 wA i\os.l00 &^.107 ot 2010

¶123

¶124

The learned single ludge failed to see that the circular, dated 25.O7.2001, of the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, is only an administrative instruction and it would not act as a bar for conducting survey by an officer of the rank of Regional Deputy Director and hence, the survey conducted in the instant case by the Regional Deputy Director is not liable to be set aside relying on the said circular. The petitioners in both the writ petitions in which the impugned common order was passed have failed to demonstrate the prejudice that would be caused to them if survey is conducted. Further, non-observance of the circular, dated 25.07.2001, would not vitiate the survey, nor will affect any civil rights of the respondents herein/writ petitioners. The learned single Judge erred in holding that no reasons are shown in directing the RDD to conduct survey and the reasons for deviating from the normal procedure are also not recorded. The learned single Judge unnecessarily attached over-importance to the circular, dated 25.07.2001. The observation of the learned single Judge that there is arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Commissioner in directing the RDD to conduct the survey is erroneous. In the absence of any prejudice that would be caused to the writ petitioners in conducting the survey, the extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is unwarranted. The aspects highlighted by the learned Single Judge are trivial in nature and non-observance of the same cannot form basis for annulling the survey. The learned single Judge failed to see that the survey was conducted over the lands in Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village and admittedly, the land of the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.4O0 of 2O2O (sole petitioner in W.P.No.6761 of 2018), i.e.

¶125

ARR & DT.SA, JJ $ { \d.tll0 & t0? of2020

¶126

¶127

IDPL Employees Cooperative^{Housing Society Limited is in Survey} No.163 and hence, there^{is no cause of action at all for the said} Society to object the survey or^{to challengethe same. The} observation of the^{learned single Judge that conducting of surveyby} an officer of Department^{of Survey, Settlement& Land Records} would upset the rights of the^{aforementioned Society has no basis'} The view of the learned single^{Judgethat the survey conducted by} the RDD is ex-facie^{illegal and submissionof report by him to the} Commissioner is also^{illegal, is also without any basis. The} observation of the^{learned single ludge that the reportof the RDD} will have serious ramifications^is only^{imaginary.The view of the} learned single Judge that the^{appellantin both these appealscould} have moved the civil Court^{seekinga directionto survey is also} unwarranted, since there^{is no bar of having the land surveyedby} the officials of Department of^{Survey, Settlement & Land Records.} No legal^grounds were^{made out for objecting the surveyconducted} by the RDD. Conducting^{survey and fixing boundary stoneswith the} assistance of GPS by the officials^{of SurveyDepartment can neverbe} objected, since the same^{would neither confer nor diminish any right} in favour of the^parties to the^{dispute, unlessthe survey reportis} made part of some legal^{proceedings and establishedto the} satisfaction of the adjudicating authority.^{The impugned common} order, dated t0.02.2020,^passed by the^{learnedsingle Judgeis} erroneous and ultimately^prayed to set aside^{the same and allow the} writ appeals as^prayed for.

¶128

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the^{respondentsin} both these appeals would submit that on an earlier occasion, the

¶129

ARR & Dr.S..1I \:\ \os.10ll.i lllT of l02r)

¶130

¶131

appellant in both these appeals and another person by name A.Srinivasa Rao have made an application to the RDD on 07.12.1999 to conduct survey of Survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar Village. The RDD conducted survey and passed orders, which were challenged beFore the Commissioner. The Commissioner, vide his order, dated 10.07.200L, found fault with RDD in direcfly entertaining the application and conducting survey by observing that such exercise ought to be undertaken by the Mandal Surveyor and accordingly ordered the parties to the appeal to file an application before the primary authority for survey and demarcation, Having kept quiet for 14 long years, the appellant in these writ appeals and A.Srinivasa Rao, directly made an application to the Commissioner on 24.05.2074, seeking an order to conduct survey of land in Survey Nos.14B, t49, 759, 160, 161 and 162 of Hydernagar Village and to re-fix boundaries of his land in Sy.No.160 and surrounding survey numbers. The Commissioner endorsed it to RDD asking him to conduct survey. As per the directions of the Commissioner, RDD conducted survey and submitted his report dated 24.10.2014 to the Commissioner. The action of Commissioner in entertaining the application/s to conduct survey and directing RDD to conduct survey is contrary to his earlier decision, dated 10.07.2001, and directions issued from time to time. The entire survey exercise is ex-facie illegal, smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and void ab initio. Further, the claim of ownership by the appellant herein and another is based on unregistered sale deed dated 27.12.1970. As they never became owners of land, their very claim to conduct survey is not valid. Further, it is not a valid document since it does not disclose boundaries. Based on a false claim, survey could not have been

¶132

ARR & Dr.SA, JJ $A \os..100 & {07 of2020

¶133

¶134

conducted. Further,^{there is inordinatedelay and lachesin} requesting to conduct survey.^{Further, in the year 1989, surveywas} conducted and^{therefore, there cannot be a surveyagain' Further,} the survey request^{was made only to gather evidencein the pending} civil suits filed by the^{appellant herein and it was not a bonafide} request. The application/s^{for conductingsurveydid not disclose} about filing of^{civil suits and the earlier orders of the Commissioner.} The Commissioner erred^{in not looking into his own order,dated} tO.O7.2OOl, and^{contrary to his own decisionconcerning the same} survey numbers he could^{not have ordered fresh survey by reviewing} his own order, that too, after a^{lapse of several years, which is not} permissible. Further, there are serious boundary^{disputes and such} disputes cannot be^{resolved by conducting survey. Further,the} order of the Commissioner^{directing the RDD to conductsurveyis} against the circular orders^{in Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99,dated} 25.7.200L, of the Special^{Commissioner and Director, Survey,} Settlements and^{Land Records'ParagraphB of the said circular} mandates that no^{petition/appeal shall be entertainedhereinafter} directly, by-passing the^{hierarchy of survey officers and in case any} petition is received through^party or otherwise by^{any officer other} than the Mandal Revenue Officer,^{it should be immediatelyreturned} to the party advising him to^{whom he has to approach.Under these} circumstances, the learned^{single Judge is justifiedin allowingthe} writ petitions. There is no illegality or^{perversity in the impugned} common order. No^grounds are^made out^{by the appellantin both} these appeals to set aside the impugned^{commonorderand} ultimately^prayed to dismiss the writ^appeals'

¶135

ll ARR & DLSA.JJ ItA Nos.{00 & 107 of 201(l

¶136

In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in both these writ appeals is as follows:

¶137

"Whether the common order, dated 1O.O2.2O2O, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.39279 of 2OL7 and W.P.No.676L ol 2018 is liable to be set aside?

¶138

POINT:

¶139

L2. The settled legal position is that a request for conducting survey by private persons is permissible and the scheme/policy frame work with regard to the same in Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.7.2001 of the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, is in force. The learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with the subject matter, was of the opinion that in view of earlier orders of the Commissioner, dated L0.7 .200L, and the circular instructions on the issue, the action of RDD in conducting survey is ex facie illegal and that the RDD conducted survey as directed by the Commissioner and report was submitted to the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed orders on 29.tL.2014 accepting the report of RDD. When there is no dispute with regard to the instructions issued by the Commissioner vide circular, dated 25.07.2001, and further instructions vide circular, dated 18.05.2010, and when the same are in force, private parties making request to conduct survey are required to follow those circular instructions scrupulously. Further, the Commissioner, having found in his field inspection that the instructions issued vide circular instructions dated 25.7.2001 and 18.5.2010 were not being observed scrupulously, issued further instructiong vide D.O.Rc.No.NU4296/ 2012, dated 22.8.20t2, which

¶140

\RR & Dr.SA. JJ \A \os.l00 &^.107 ofll)10

¶141

¶142

disclose that every application^{for demarcation should be submitted} to the concerned^{Ta hsilda r/E-seva/Mee-sevacentre; must be} registered and registered^{applicationmust be attended in seriatum} and valid reasons are to^{be assignedfor any deviation to the} seriatum, Certain copies are^{also requiredto be uploaded along with} such application. Further,^{Paragraph B of the circular,dated} 25.07.2001, mandates that^{no petition/appealshallbe entertained} hereinafter directly, by-passing^{the hierarchy of survey officersand} in case any^petition is^{received throughparty or otherwise by any} officer other than the Mandal^{RevenueOfficer/Tahsildar, it should be} immediately returned to the^{party advisinghim to whom he has to} approach. The circular orders^{indicatedabove provide for hierarchy} of officers and who should deal^{with surveyrelated issues and} procedure to make applications/appeals. The circulars are selfcontained code and are comprehensive.^{Thesecirculars alsobindthe} Commissioner. Similar^{view was taken by a Hon'ble Division Bench} of the erstwhile High Court of^{Andhra Pradesh in the order, dated} 14.06.20L3,^passed in W.A.No.110 of 2013.^{In his earlierorders} dated 10.07.2001, the Commissioner,^{while making certain remarks} against the RDD, held that the RDD is^not the^{primary authorityto} entertain applications for survey and accordingly^{set asidethe RDD} reports and decisions and remanded the matter^{to the Mandal} Revenue Officer, Balanagar. The appellant^herein did^{not challenge} the said order, instead, made another application directly to^the Commissioner for comprehensive survey and^{surprisingly, the} Commissioner, without looking into his own order, dated^10.07.2001, passed on an earlier occasion in respect of same subject matter, entertained the application and forwarded the same to the RDD

¶143

.\RR & Dr.S . JJ \A \or.l00 & 10? of:01(r

¶144

¶145

directing him to conduct survey. No reasons were assigned by the Commissioner in doing so. Further, no extraordinary circumstances were pointed out by the appellant in deviating the scheme laid down for conducting survey in circulars indicated above. There is no circular order enabling the RDD to conduct survey directly on an application made by a party. As per the circulars indicated above, a policy has been enunciated establishing hierarchy of officers assigning each of them specific duty in conduct of surveys and appeals etc. These aspects were examined in detail by the learned single Judge of this Court in the impugned common order, who opined that the action of the Commissioner is contrary to the rudimentary principles of Administrative Law, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. The learned single Judge further observed that strangely, the RDD did not protest such direction to conduct survey. It has also been observed by the learned single ludge that though the Commissioner directed to conduct survey in respect of land in Survey Nos.160 and 161, the RDD enlarged the scope of survey to other survey numbers also. As per the material placed on record, earlier reports of the RDD were set aside and the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned was asked to conduct survey, vide orders of the Commissioner, dated t0.07.200L. Those orders attained finality and they are still in force. So, the appellant is not entitled to upset the findings recorded by the Commissioner in his order, dated L0.07.2001, after a lapse oF 14 long years. In view of the same, we concur with the view of the learned single Judge that in view of earlier orders of the Commissioner, dated 10.7.2001, and the circular instructions on the issue, the action of RDD in conducting survey ig<*facie illegal. A strange procedure is invented to conduct

¶146

ARR & D..SA. JJ N.1 \os.l00 & l0? of 2020

¶147

¶148

survey on the instructions of the^{Commissionerand then a report} was forwarded to the Commissioner,^{who passedorderson} 29.1L.2014 accepting the report of RDD.^{The decision of loint} Collector is consequential to the^{orderof the Commissioner dated} 29.1t.2074. The learned single Judge rightly^{observed that blatant} illegality is noticed in the decision of the^{Commissioner,dated} 29.1t.2014. One of the^{contentionsputforth on behalf of the} appellants is that the respondents/writ^{petitioners have no} substantial interest in the subject^matter of^{land in SurveyNos.160} and 161 and hence, there is^{no cause} of^{action for them to file the} writ petitions. Refuting the said^{contention, the respondents/writ} petitioners contended that their lands are adjoining to the landsⁱⁿ survey Nos.160 and 161 of Hydernagar^{Villageand they were also} served with Survey notices by the^{authoritiesconcerned'The said} submission of the respondents/ writ^{petitionersis supportedby the} copies of the documents^placed on record.^{Further, admittedly,when} a civil suit in O.S.Nos.493 and⁴⁹⁴ of^{2014 is pending between the} parties on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, nothing^prevented the appellant to file^{an application in the} said civil suit for conduct of survey. Further,^{in the impugned} common order, the learned single Judge has not^expressedany opinion on the merits of the subject^{surveyconductedand the right} and entitlement of the^parties over the^land in Survey^Nos.160and 161 and other land covered by adjoining survey numbers.^The learned single Judge mainly based his conclusions over^the proced u relh iera rchy to conduct survey envisaged in the circular orders issued from time to time by the Commissioner and^{also the} order, dated lO.O7.2OO1,^passed by the Commissioner attaining

¶149

,\ llR & I)r.Sl.,l.l \,\ \os..100.t l0l of l0l()

¶150

¶151

Finality. Under the given circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned common order. The learned single Judge is justified in passing the impugned common order and there is nothlng to take a different view-

¶152

Similar issue came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.4B11 of 2011 and batch. The petitioners therein contended that despite making representations after paying necessary charges for conducting survey and demarcation of their lands, survey was not being conducted. The respondents therein filed counter admitting the issuance of circulars in respect of survey of lands and contended that the persons seeking survey are required to produce certain documents in terms of circulars and only on compliance of said conditions, survey would be conducted and that since the petitioners therein have not complied with the conditions stipulated in the circulars, they are not entiiled for any directions. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.618 of 2013, wherein, a direction was issued for compliance of conditions in the circulars and after production of relevant documents for survey as sought by the respondents in Memo dated 16-04-2072 and reminder Memo dated 10-06-2013, the respondents were directed to conduct survey and issue necessary report/proceedings to the appellant therein. In the circumstances of the case, it was held as follows:

¶153

"A perusal of the Circulars relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue goes to show that subject to compliance of conditions in the Circulars, survey can be undertaken. The Division Bench ln the said Judgment also considered the effect of Circulars and set aside the order of learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners also not disputed that the petitioners have to comply the conditions in the Circulars relied -6rf''by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In fact,

¶154

{RR& Dr.SA. JJ \ A \os.100 & t0? of202l)

¶155

¶156

Division Bench issued^{directions basing on the Circulars'} Learned Government^{Pleader for Revenue also states that while} taking up the survey^{and demarcationof the lands,the Survey} Depaitment has to follow^{the provisions under Sections 89, 89-} A and 92 of the^{AndhraPradesh (TelanganaArea)Land} Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli^{(Forshort " the Act").}

¶157

In view of the above facts^{and circumstances,the writ} petitions are disposed of directing the^{respond e nt- a utho rities to} consider the applications^{of the petitionersfor surveyand} demarcation of lands after^{receivingnecessarycharges,} keeping in view the Circulars^{videRc. No' N 1/ l40B/07} '^{dated 13-} 07-2OO7, Rc.No.N1/6543/99,^{dated 25-07-2001and Circular} vide Rc.No.N2 /L741/20tO,^{dated 18-05-2010 and also in terms} of the^judgment in W.A.No.618^{of 2013 and also keepingin} view the provisions of Sections^{89, 89-A and 92 of the Act and} take necessary action^{and communicate the decision to the} parties. It is open for the^petitioners to^{prefer appeal against} the said order. if they are^{aggrieved in terms of circulars} referred to^a bove. "

¶158

L4. Before^parting, it is apt to^{state that administrative decisions} are subject to^{judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of} India, 1950, on the^grounds of^{perversity,patentillegality,} irrationality, want of^{power to take the decision and procedural} irregularity. Except on these^{grounds administrativedecisions} cannot be interfered with, in^{exerciseof the extraordinary power of} judicial review. However, a decision is vitiated by irrationality if^the decision is so outrageous, that^{it is in defianceoF all logic; whenno} person acting reasonably could^possibly have taken the^decision, having regard to the material^{on record.A decisionmay sometimes} be set aside and^{quashed underArticle226 of the Constitution of} India, 1950 on the^ground of^{illegality.This is whenthere is an} apparent error of law on^{the face of the decision,which goes to the} root of the decision and/or in other^{words an apparent error, but for} which the decision would have been otherwise.^{ludicial review under} Article 226 of the Constitution of India,^{1950 is directed,not against} the decision, but the decision-making^{process.Of course,} a^patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which

¶159

¶160

,\RR & Dr.SA, JJ $A Nos.too &^.107 of 20llr

¶161

goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision-making process. In the instant case, as per the material placed on record, since there is patent illegality on the part of the Commissioner in directing the RDD to conduct survey and accepting the survey report submitted by the RDD vide order, dated 29.11.2014, it would vitiate the whole decision making process. Hence, the learned single ludge of this Court is justified allowing the writ petitions by exercising the extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 oF the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons/ both the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.

¶162