Disposed

M/S.Kishoresons Investments v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024WP/22985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposed two writ petitions challenging interference with petitioners' land possession near a lake buffer zone. The Court directed a joint survey by authorities in three months to fix boundaries while maintaining status quo pending finalization.

What did the court decide?

Joint survey of subject property in presence of petitioners to identify and localize FTL and buffer zone boundaries within 3 months; status quo maintained pending finalization.

M/S.Kishoresons Investments Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos: 28151 OF 2018 and 22985 of 2024

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 28151 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . M/s.Kishoresons lnvestments, a^partnership firm, having office at 15-9-469/3, Mahboobgunj Road, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its^partnerSri Gautam Chand Jain S/o.late Kishore Chand, aged about 60^years, OccBusiness, R/o.H.No.14-6-88, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶11

M/s.CSK REALTORS LIMITED, a company registered under Companies Act, Office at H.No.5-9-30/1/17A, Ground Iloor, US Residency, Palace Colony, Lakehill Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing^Director Rakshit Agarwal S/o.Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

I State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary lrrigation and^Command Area Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Chief Engineer, lnigation and Command Area Development^Department, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, lnigation and Command Area Development Department, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Assistant Executive Engineer, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the^officials of^the respondents in trying to demolish the boundary wall/fencing^{by way of interfering} with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the^petitioners over the^land admeasuring of Ac.2-32^gts., under sy.no.50/2,^{land admeasuringAc.1-10 gts.,} under sy.no.50/3/A, land admeasuring Ac.3-19 112^{gts., under sy.no.50/3/AA,} and land admeasuring Ac.3-00^gts., under sy.no.50i3lEE,^{total admeasuring}

¶20

Ac.10-21 1/2 gts., situated at Bomruknuddowla Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without lbllowing the procedure contemplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, rnconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish or interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands, without following the procedure contemplated under law.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish or interfere with peaceful possession and enjoymert of the petitioner over the land admeasuring of Ac.2-32 gts., under Sy.No.50/2, land admeasuring Ac.1-10 gts., under Sy,No.50/3/4, land admeasuring Ac.3-19 112 gts., under Sy,No.S1l3lAA, and land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts., under Sy,No,SO/3/EE,total admeasuring Ac.'10-21 1/2 gts., situated at Bomruknuddowla Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddyy District, without following the procedure contemplated under law, pending disposal of the writ petitlon.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMEO QUADRI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO:22985 OF 2024

¶26

Between:

¶27

'l . IvI'S.KISHORESONS INVESTMENTS, a partnership firm, having office at 159-469/3, Mahboobgunj Road, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, rep. by its partner Sri Gautam Chand Jain S/o.late Kishore Chand, aged about 66 y6ars, Occ. Business, Ri/o.H.No.14-6-88, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶28

Mis.CSK REALTORS LIMITED, a company registered under Companies Act, Office at H.No.5-9-30/111 7A, Ground floor, US Residency, Palace Colony, Lakehill Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Direct6r Rakshit Agarwal S/o.Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal.

¶29

...PETITIONERS

¶30

AND

¶31

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Executive Engineer, lnigation and Command Area Development Department, Ranga Reddy District.

¶33

5 The Assistant Executive EnS11r.egI lrriqlrtion &Command Area Development Department, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶34

¶35

..RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia pray{lg that in the} circumstances^{statedin in" .triorrit filed therewith, the High courtmay..be} particularly one in^{the natureof Writ of} pleased to issue " rit^{ol. iii"Jiion} 'o'" Mandamus declaring^{tne aciionof the respondents' particularlythe 3 respondent} herein in^{not conducting t'}"yund dt"t"'tionof the landbearing 3v.N"..SOZ,^{5O/3/A, 50/3ala solalee. situatedat Bomruknuddowla Village'} i'ri""irr"rs"r^{Mandal' nrng; n"aoy.District'} .^{on the application of the} p"iiii".*. o:"t ed. 07.o3.2024^{ii ittegat, arbitrary-un,iust and violation of principles} -Survev and Boundaries Act' 1923' iinuirrrr lr.tice^{and againsift'e pt"o'itionsof} and the Rules^{madetnereunOer,Lnd consequentlydirect the respondents2.and} 3 to conduct^{joint survey anJ Oemarcationin ihe presence of irrigationauth_orities} and fix boundary^{stones.ur.io'nOingland of the. petitioners admeasuring of Ac 2-} 32^gts., under^{sy.no.SOlzli,na iJi''"asuring Ae1-10 gts} '^{undersy no'50/3/A'} land admeasuring^{Ac.3-19 1" SG'under sylno 50i3lAA' and land admeasuring} Ac.3-00^{gts., under.v.no.soi5lEe'totaladmeasuringAc'10-21.1/2.gts ' situated} at Bomruknuddowla^{vittage- Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶37

lA NO: 1^{OF 2024}

¶38

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingtha.tin the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{titeo in supp=ortot tn" p"iition' ir," Hign Court may be pleas.ed be} pleased to direct the^{3rd respondent to conducta joint survey and demarcationin} the^{presence of tne irrigati5i auffrorities and fii boundary stonessurrounding} land of the^{petitioners ;;;;';;i;g} of Ac2-32.gts '^{undersy no^'5.012.t llnd} admeasuring^{Ac.1-10gt.., ;nd"r;Vrio.S0/3/A,.landadmeasuringAc.3-19 /2^gts.,} ,ri"i"v.r"]so/elan,^{inu' r,na-'Ji''"asuringAc 3-00 gts'' under sy no sllJlee'} total admeasuring^{Ac.tO-ii f7i gts., sitirated at BomruknuddowlaVillage'} Rajendranagar^{Mandal' n"ng'- R-eddy District'on the application of the} 07 .o3.2oii,^{im'n"oi"terv'pendins disposalof the writ petition'} ;iil;;;;";red.

¶39

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI MOHD MOINAHMED QUADRI}

¶40

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'1 to 3: GPFOR REVENUE}

¶41

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'4 & 5: GPFOR IRRIGATION& CAD}

¶42

The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶43

¶44

¶45

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶46

WRIT PETITION Nos. 281 5lof2 O18 and 22985 of 2o24

¶47

COMIVION ORDER:

¶48

The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶49

2 W.P.No.28151 of 2Ol8 is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶50

".,.ro lssue @ Wit, order or direction nore partiqllarlg orle in the nahtre of Wit of Mandamus declaing the high hand.ed actioi ol the offi.ciols of the respond.ents in tryrq to denolish the bouru)ary wall/fenciig bu walt of interking utith peacefut possession (rnd enlogmeit oI the petiti;ners ouer the land- ad.measuing of Ac.2-32 gts., under sg.io.So/2, land adngasuring Ac.l 1O gts., under sg.ra.so/3/A, lani adnea.suring Ac.3-l9t> gts., under sg.no.So/3/AA, and ktnd admea.suring Ac-3-OO gt_s., under sg.no.SO/ 3/ DE, total ad.measuing Ac. I O-2 I y, gts. , situated at Bomruknud.d.owlo ViLlage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddg Distrtct, taithout issuing any prior notice to the petitioner arld wtthout folLotutng th.e procedure contemptate:a under law, os illegol, arbitrary, unjust, urrr.tustitutionaj, in uiotatiori of pnnciples of natural^justice, and cottsequentlg direct th.e respondents not to rk,molsh or interkre uith peaceful possession and enjogment of the petitioners ouer the subject lands, utithout folloutng the procedure antengtlated under lctLu, and to pass such other ord.er or orders as tlils Hon'ble Court d.eems Jit and proper tr the circumstances of the case".

¶51

3 W.P.No.229B5 of 2024 is filed seeking the foflowing relief:-

¶52

"...to tssue d wit or diection nore parlicatarl| one ia the nature of Wit of Mantlamu.s declaring the action of tE respondents, particttarty the 3"t responlent herein in not cond.ucting suneA ancl demarcation oi the larul bearing Sg.Nos.SO/2, 50/3/A, SO/3/AA & SO/3/EE, situetetl at Boftlrukrutddoula Village, Rajendraragar Marulal Ranga ReddA District, on the applicaatbn of the petitioners dated O7.O3.2O24 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and vtolotion of pinciples of nafi,Eal jtstirp and agoiittst the prouisions of Surueg & Boundqies Act, 1923, and the Rules made theieunder, anrd conseqt.entlg direct the respondenls 2 dnd. S to corlducl joint suroeg and d.enarcqtion in the presence of itrigat@n authoities and fi boundary srones sutounding land of the petitioners admeasurtng of Ac.2_32 gts., urtder sg.no.So/2, land ad.measuring Ac.l-lo gts., under sg.no.5O/3/A, latd onmeglunng Ac.3-19,/, gts., under sg.ta.So/3/AA, and land. ad,Il|c.suring AC.3-OO gts., under sg.no.5O/3/EE, total admeasurtng Ac.1O-21% g*1, situated^qt Bonvuknuddoula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.lnga R;d(lg Distrbt and to p@ss suc/L otller order or orders as this Hon,ble Carrt ,na-g deems Jit and proper" .

¶53

i.r

¶54

¶55

It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.O2_32 guntas in Sy.No.50/2, Ac.0t_1o guntas in Sy.No.50/3/A, Ac.3_19 yz gts., in Sy.No.S0/3/AA and Ac.o3-oo guntas in Sy.No.So/3//EE, thus total admeasuring Ac. 1o27Yz guntas, situated at Bomruknuddowla Village, Rajendranagar 'Maadal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.3556 of 20O6 dated 17.02.2006, 1O436 of 2005 dated 18.07.2005, 8ZZ6 of2OO5 dated 20.06.2005, 9150 of 2005 dated 28.06.2005 and 1349 of 2006 dated 2 1 '0 l '2006' It is further shted that their vendors and their predecessors in title are the absolute owners of the lands and the nature of the rands has been depicted in the revenue records as patta lands. It is further stated that when the respondents are interfering without issuing any notice or without following due procedure either under the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 13 I 7 Fasli (Act No. VIII of 13 I 7 Fasli) or under the provisions of the Telangana Irrigation Act, l3S7 Fasti, the petitioners have filed writ petition on the file of this Court questioning the action of the respondent authorities for not following the due process of law. It is further stated that the respondent autJrorities without conducting any enquiry are frequently interfering with the possession of the petitioners and causing inconvenience for enjoyment of the said lands.

':/

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that the tank, commonly called as Bum-Rukh-UddinDowla lake, is situated in an extent of 18.575 acres. It is further stated that the revenue authorities have conducted survey in pursuance of the various directions issued by this Court in public Interest Litigation cases and issued the notification lor f-rxation of the FTL for the said tanks. It is also stated that the lands claimed by the petitioners, having purchased under registered sale deeds, are forming part of survey Nos.SO /2 and 50/3, which are affected by the FTL/ buffer zone of the lake. It is further statecl that when there are encroachments on the said lake by the third parties, OAs have been instituted vide O.A.No.614 of 2Og and O.A.No. 16 /2022 NGT (SZ) on the lile of the National Green Tribunal and the same are pending for adjudication. It is further stated that pending adjudication of the said OAs, when the petitioners are making efforts to convert the said lands for other thari agricultural purpose, the respondents have interfered $/ith their possession of the property.

¶61

A careful examination of the pleadings would reveal that there is no dispute with regard to the lands being purchased by the petitioners under registered sale deeds and also there is no dispute with regard to the lands forming part of Survey Nos.SO/2 and 50/3

¶62

¶63

areaffectedinFTL.Thereisnodenialthattherespondent authorities^{withoutidentifyingand tocalization of the saidiands are} frequently interfering^{with the possessionof the petitioners'}

¶64

It is settled^{law that if the lands purchased by the petitioners} are in any manner^{effectedby the fixationof the FTL, the petitioners} being purchasers^{from the original pattadarsare entitled for} compensation and^{the respondents have to follow due process of} law.

¶65

In the instant^{case, sincethe petitionersagreed to cooperate} for the^{joint inspection/survey by the respondent authorities' ends} of^{justice wouldbe met, if the respondents are directedto conduct} joint survey of the subject^{property in the presenceof the petitioners} and after^{identi$ingand localizationof boundariesof the FTL and} to hx boundaries^{of the FTL and buffcrzone of Bum-Rukh-Uddin-} Dowla lake, within^{a period of three(O3) months from today' It is} further directed^{that pending hnalizationof the survey,the parties} shall maintain^{st@tusquo in respectof the subject property'in all} respects.

¶66

are g. With the above^{observations, both the writ petitions} disposed of. There^{shall be no order as to cos-tll}

¶67

¶68

¶69

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/.V. KAVITHA

ASSISTANT^R(GlstRAR

//TRUE coPY// sEcrtoN &t'"t*

¶74

To.'"'1. th" Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat,^HYderabad'

¶75

z. ine'oiitrici^{Cirllector, Ranga Reddy District} - 5. ri'i" irtil'iioar,^{Raienbrana"garManlal Ranga Reddy District'} i. iii"^{pti"i,ipat becietarvinilationand Commgld Area Development} - o,]"p"tiiii"5t,'sA" ;it'"i ;;it; ";' Secretariat.B.ui^{ld inss'H} vde^{ra bad'} 5.^'l-he Chief^{Engineer' lr;ig;i6;;dCommano Area Development Department'} 3udha Bhavah,^HYderabad.

¶76

o. ite exe"utita'Engin;;r,Inigation^{and Command Area Development} Department,^{Ranga Reddy District} . ..

¶77

z it E Aisistant^{ExdcutiveEngineer' lnigationand Command Area '} ' Oeref opri.l6nt Department, dajendran5gar Division' Ranga Re-qdyDistrict 8. ffi ;"c6'ildhl^{I'i'o l-iEi Nib itl-hH t',teo6unont, Advocatet9! q cl} 5. i;; dC"'L-cF^{Fon nEVer.rUe, Hish Court for the State of Telangana.} fOUTI

¶78

ro.tir"o'dc" to^{GP FoRIRRIGATIoN& cAD,High court for the State of} Telangana. [OUTI

¶79

11.Two CD CoPies BN BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2611112024

COMMON ORDER

e S 1 € o
(tt N\ I
11
ot),)
ao
D!5 plJ a:
,

¶85

WP.Nos.28151 of 2018 & 22985 of 2024

¶86

DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶87

G){'4 w;*

M/S.Kishoresons Investments v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kishoresons Investments v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Sanga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Naheed Nusrath Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mavoori Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Raparthy Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Dharma Vs State of Telangana

Rudra Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana