Disposed

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Nov 2024WP/12919/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a revenue survey notice as arbitrary. The court did not decide the merits, directing the Revenue Officer to consider documents filed and issue notices to all interested persons before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish relevant documents; respondent to issue notices to all interested persons before survey.

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^s2s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12919 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited, having its registered^office at^102, lmperial Plaza, Beside TOPAZ Building, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-^{500 082.} Represented by its Director C.V.Srinivas, S/o. C.K.R.Mohan^{Rao,Aged about} 52 years, Occ- Business, Fl/o. Surya Towers, Nacharam,^Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary,^Revenue Department, Telangana

¶12

2 Sri S.Achyuth Reddy, S/o.S.Damodhar Reddy, Aged abottt^{47 yeaq, O9q-} Agricultuni, R/o. H.No.2-46, Chinnamangalaram^{Village, IvloinabadMandal,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

3 The [Vlandal Surveyor, Moinabad Mandal,Ranga Reddy^District

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevalla Division, Ranga Reddy^District.'

¶16

The District Collector, Lakadikapul, Ranga Reddy^District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or other proceeding more^{particularly,} one^{in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice^{dated 05/03i2O22 in file} No.Fl132t2O22 issued by the third respondent,^{for the purposeof swveyof the} land in Sy.No.119 admeasuring Acs.15.09 Gts.,^{situated at Chinnamangalaram} Village, IVoinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^{in the name of the petitionerby} sending the same to one Sri. G. Suresh,^{employee of the petitioner on his mobile} 12.03-2022 despite submitting the^{objections dated 09.03.2022and without}

¶19

considering the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and to quash the same and further direct the Respondents to forthwith drop the proceedings for survey.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated OS|O3|20ZZ in file No.F/13212022 issued by the third respondent for survey of the land in Sy.No.'1 19 admeasuring Acs.15.09 Gts., situated at Chinnamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Between:

¶24

Sri .S.Achyutlr Reddy, S/o.S.Damodhar Reddy, Aged about 47 years, OccAgriculture, Rr'o. H.No.2-46, Chinnamangalaram Village, tr/oinab-ad t\i'landal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

...PETITIONERyRESPONDENT No.2

¶26

AND

¶27

1 l//s. trilanikya Homes Private Limited, having its registered office at 102, Lmperiat^{P|aza, BesideTOPAZ Building, Panjagutta,-Hyderabad- S00OB2.} R^epresented by its Director C.V.Srinivas, S/o. C.K.R.N/ohan Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. Surya Towers, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

¶28

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶29

2 Jhe^{State of Telangana, Representedby its principal Secretary,Revenue} Department, Telangana

¶30

The lVlandal Surveyor, Moinabad Mandal,Ranga Reddy Districl

¶31

4 The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶32

5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevalla Division, Ranga Reddy District. tt The District Collector, Lakadikapul, Ranga Reddy District

¶33

...RESP.ONDENTS

¶34

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 VACATE the lnterim Orders Dated 11t0312O22 in LA No.1/2022 in W.p NO. 1 291 912022 by d ismissing l. A No.1 12022 in W. p.No. 1 29 1 g t 2022.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V,DURGA PRASAD

¶36

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 &³ to 6:^{AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶37

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: M/s. RESU^{LAW OFFICE}

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.12919 of 2o22

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This writ petition has been hled questioning th e notice dated 05.O3.2t)'22 issued by respondent No.3 in File No.F I 13212022, for the purpose of survey of iand in Survey No.119 admeasuring Ac.15.09 guntas situated at Chinnamar-rgalam Vitlage, MoinabadMandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the name of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for other appropriate relie'fs.

¶44

It is statecl that respondent No.2 claiming to be the purchaser of an extent of Ac.O.O3 guntas in Sun,ey No.1 19, through registered sale deed dated 19.12.2018 has filed an application on the file of respondent No.3 seeking to conduct survey and acting upon the said application, respondent No.3 has earlier issu ed two notices to the petitioner and on the objections being submitted by the petitioner stating that originally the total extent of Survey No. i l9 is Acs.1S.09 girtas and as per the lzrtest Dharani portal and revenue records. there

¶45

CVBR, I wi-].2919 _2022

¶46

are 27 holdings in that survey number^{held by different} pattadars including the petitioner, but survey notices^were issued selectively to some pattadars^{withoutany basis, the} further proceedings pursuant to^{the said notices were dropped.} The grievance of the petitioner is that at^{the instanceof} respondent No.2, respondent No.3 has now^{again issued the} impugned notice, thereby fixing the^{date bf 'surveyof land on} 12.03.2022 at 10:30 AM,^even though^{there are civil disputes} pending in respect of the subject^{property and without taking} into consideration the detailed objections^{submitted by the} petitioner.

¶47

This Court on 11.03.2022, while^{issuing notice to} respondent No.2, directed that the^{survey scheduledto be} conducted on 12.03.2022^{shall stand deferred until further} orders.

¶48

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner vehementlycontends} that under the guise of conducting^{survey by issuingsurvey} notices, respondent No.3 is not^{only trying to encroach the} petitioner's lald but also to conduct^{survey in respectof total}

¶49

¶50

CVBR, J w p-12919 _2022

¶51

-^--7

¶52

extent of land in Survey No.1i9, by issuing notice to few landowners on selective basis, which is not permissible as per the various circulars issued from time to time.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has purchased arr extent of Ac.0.O3 guntas througl-r registered sale deed bearing Document No.12551 of 20 18 dated 19.12.2018; infactthe saidpropertyis forming part of Survey No. 1 19 u,herein the petitioner is only holding small extent of land; and therefore, the petitioner is not having any riglrt to object for conducting the survey and fixation of bounclaries.

¶54

Learned l\ssistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for rerspondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 submits 1.hat the Commissioner oi Survey, Settlements ald Land Records issued various circularr;, from time to time, prescribing the detailed procedure for conducting survey of the agricultural lalds; and only if the petitioner or respondent No.2 fulfils the condifions stipulated in those circulars, respondent No.3 would conduct survey strictly in accorda,ce with law. Learned Assistant t

¶55

¶56

CVBR, J Wp 12919 _2022

¶57

Government Pleader further submits that mere conducting^of survey does not take away^{the rights of eitherof the parties nor} does it creates or extinguishes title;^{the appropriateremedyfor} seeking eviction is to approach^{the competentcivil court by} inslituting a suit and it is for^{the civil court to examine the} evidence being produced^{by either of the parties ald come to al} independent conclusion over the^{right arid entitlement of the} parties to the suit; and the^present writ^{petitionas filed by the} petitioner-is not maintainable.

¶58

In view of the above, this^{pourt without expressing any} opinion on the merits of the^{matter,deems itappropriateto} dispose of the writ petition^{by leaving it open to the petitionerto} furnish all the relevant documents^{in support of its claim ald} on frling such documents,^{respondent No.3 shall consider the} same and pass appropriate^{orders in accordancewith law and} communicate the same to the^{petitioner' It is further directed} that before conducting survey, if any,^{respondent No.3 shall} issue notices to al1 the interested/affected^{persons o*'er the} subject property, including the pelitioner.

¶59

' t ..r. :r,};i:.:.. ;&

¶60

¶61

CVBR, J Wp L2919 _2022

¶62

The u,rit petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶63

As a se<1trel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶64

pending shal1 stand closed.There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶65

SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, Telangana,State of} Telangana.

¶71

The Mandal Surveyor, Moinabad^{lt/andal,Ranga Reddy District}

¶72

The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal,Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶73

The Revenue l)ivisional Officer, Chevalla^{Division, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶74

The District Collector,^{Lakadikapul, Ranga Reddy District}

¶75

One CC 1o SRl M.V.DURGA^{PRASAD, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to M/s. RESU LAW OFFICE,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

B. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OtJT]

¶78

Two CD Copies

BSR. BS^[t,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1911112024

i iTA as +
(n
?
0 2 jAtl 2025

¶84

ORDER

¶85

WP.No.12919 of 2022

¶86

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶87

¶88

,r-d9&
"k*

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Owais Siddiqe Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Arifuddin and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Ponnakuri Prahalad Vs The State of Telangana

Bollam Dayakar Vs The state of Telanagana

Ca Bala Srinivasa Rao Namburi Vs Union of India

Malika Jehan Begum (Died as per LRs Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7) Vs The State of Telangana