Writ petition for mandamus to order revenue authorities to demarcate disputed land was dismissed. Court held that illegal action plea is premature when a stay order exists in a pending civil suit and appropriate appeal remedy was not exhausted.
Petition dismissed without costs. No directions to demarcate land granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD (Special Original Jurisdiclon)
N/ONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
wRtT PET|T|ON NO.'18379 0F 2021
Betwee n:
...PETfiIONERS
AND
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, moreparticularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the in action of the official respondents in notdemarcating the land in respect of thepetitioners land in Sy. No. 313/AA an extent ofAc. 0-16 guntas or 1936 sq. yards situated at Gangaram, Chandanagar, Serilingampallylvlandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal arbitrary, contrary to theprovisions and against the settled principles of law and in violation of theprinciples of naturaljusticeand consequently direct the official respondents to demarcatepetitioners landin Sy.No.
2
313/AA an extent of Ac. 0-16guntas or1936 sq. yardssituatedat Gangaram, .- Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal,Ranga Reddy District.
IA NO I F 2021
Petition uncjer section151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in sLrpport of thepetition,the High Court maybe pleasedto direct the official respondentsto demarcate petitioners land in Sy. No. 313/AA an extent of Ac. 0-16 guntas or 1936 sq.yards situated at Gangaram,Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, RangaReddy District, pending disposalof the writpetition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleasedto suspend the permit No.21C2111238712020 dated09.12.2020 for maklng constructions illegally in Sy. No. 313/AA byRespondentsNo. 6 & Z, pending disposal of the U/rit Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. RAMESHYADAV
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
-2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.183?9 of 2O2l
ORDER:
This wrrt petition is filed praying to grant the following rclief:
''. .to issuc Writ. Orrler of I)ilectjon, ntore partit.rrlari-r otrc in thc r)irtr.lr(' of Wrrr oMan(lan]lls, ro cleclare the in a(.tion of the official respor.rdents in not (lcr'ltarcating the lan(l ir.t rcspect oi titc pctitioners land in Sr,.No.3l3/AA an extent of Ac. 0-16 guntas or 1936 sq yards situated at Gangaran, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions and against the settled principles of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the official respondents to demarcate petitioners land in Sy.No.313/AA an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas or 1936 sq yards situated at Gangaram, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to pass such other order or orders,..'
-l
.i . ,r\i t,,r lrn t lr.r ir::trilcci e,tLLtlst ll'..,r- thc 1)llilir)ll(l.ri. tlltsirlll orclc:- rlirs :rLrir:, r1Ltt rttlv extcrtalL'(i,,\ccordinglo1( ili-ll((1 coLlllscl, alter filing r;l'tl'rr: st-tit, applicatioll\'asmade to col'i(1tl(lt slll''e:elnd demarcatt: thr' lirnd claimed lo [ravciteen ou'ncd br thc llclitioners in 31'.No.ilili t\A. ln response to the said:r1>Dlicartron,r'idt' endorserncrlt clated 20.O7 .2021 , the Tahsildaritllbrr.neclthe petitioners that their application to conduct sltrvey cannot be accepted, since they have applied to conductsun'ey for part of the survey number, rvhich does not have sub-divisionand the Tahsil office do not have record of sub-divisions.Challengingt he same, this rvrit pr:t-it.ion is li1ed.
il. I-t lrrr:r'rr rurrscl 1br tl're llclitioncrs pl:rcccl rclilLrtr(' o1l tirc Circulirr ri,rtc<i 13.O7.2OO7 of the Commissioner ol Sun'er', Settlements and Land Records, to contend that the Tahsildar is also compctent to demarcate the land and assign sul:-division numbers.'l'herefore, the rejection is ex facie i11egal.
7 . Learn ed Assistant Government Pleader also lairly submits that the Tahsildar is competent to determine individual extents of Iand in a sLrrve],' number. But once such delermirration is unclcrta<r::r. h, ]rars lo sul)mit a rcport to the Assisterr.rL l)irector. Sr,incr. S( lllL r']('nts and Land Rcc:orcls ancl thc Assist:tn' i)irector akrn.^ is (',.)riil). 1( nt lrr assign sull-r'irvisions. Thr-rs. ;;t,titioricr oright
\ \
-4-
to have availed remedyof appeal and raise the plea urged in this writ petition beforethe AppeliateAuthority.
g. In the facts of thiscase, itappears that the statusof possession is in dispute,as is evidentfrom the averments made in paragraph No.5 ofthe affidavit filed in supportof the writ petition' petitioners instituted o.S.No.525 of 2o2lpendingin the court of II- AdditionalSeniorCivil Judge,Ranga Reddy District'L B'Nagar' alleging interferenceby respondents6 and 7 and obtained an order of statusquo' This implies that there is inter se disputebetween the pet.itionersand respotrdents6 and T Therelore'at this stage' acceptingthe con[cntionof petltionersand directingthc oflice o[ Tahsildar toconductsurvey and demarcatesub-divisionof the property claimedto belongto the petitionersfor the purpose of assignment ofsub-division would amountto interferingwith the disputepending before the civil Court' Further'it cannot be said thatpetitioners are remedilessto seek relief of appointmentof Advocate Commissionerfor identilication of the propertyclaimed to
---__rr
bll r,',r rrr.,ri lr., rlit. Jtlfitirlncrs irt thc pcnding sLlit. ilaving irvallr,(l th(l rcmedy l:rcforc the civil Court and when the suit ls pending, petitioners cannot simultaneously prosccute li tigation independentlv by relying upon the circular instructions to conduct survey and assign sub_division number and come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus against the survey authorities to conduct survey, demarcate and assign sub-divisions. The Court is not inciined to entertain the writ petition.
q D/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ,TRUE COPY// AS SISTANT R GIST R To, SECTION FFICER 1 9n"Ct to Srr A. Ramesh yadav, . ,t ,*?L.:cs .to^ Gf for Revenue, Advocare High Court [oPUClfor Hyderabad IOUTI - the State of Telangana at 3. Two CD Cociies 4. One Spare bopy. IVP
*_--
HIGH COURT
DATED:2310812021
<br>{t ?
I (; i
I J
11!?tstl
ORDER
WP.No.18379 of 2021
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
oc<br>6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct revenue authorities to demarcate disputed land pending a civil suit?
Does the existence of a civil suit preclude the High Court from entertaining a writ petition for land survey?
Was the Tahsildar's rejection of the survey application legally sustainable?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Donthi @ Juluri Balamma and others
State of Telangana and others
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
