Disposed

G. Mallesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2024WP/30640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Hyderabad disposed of a writ petition challenging a survey notice issued under the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act without prior notice to interested parties in a manner which violated principles of natural justice as officers had not issued notice to stakeholders in pending disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the Deputy Inspector of Survey to issue notices to interested parties before conducting survey of land.

G. Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 J

¶2

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

¶3

IIONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETI TroN NO: 3064 0 0F 2024

¶7

Befween:

¶8

G Rio^{ftla]lesf,__Slo,Late G. Shivaiah, Aged about 43 years,} Occ. Business, H No i-30-670, Shiva Nagar, xninai",gudi"SEi,,ii"iruro

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanoana Rep by its prl. Secretary for Revenue, Secretarrat building, Hyderabai

¶12

2 The Diskict Collector, Medchal_Malkajgiri District

¶13

3 The Revenue Division officer, Markajgiri Division, Mecrchar-Markajgiri District

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Atwal Mandat, Medchal_Malkajgiri District.

¶15

E The Deputy lnspector of Survey, Office of Revenue Divisional Office, tMarkajgiri Division, Medchat_MlikarEiiol.irii."""" "'

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constiiution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be peased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Sth Respondent in proceeding with the demarcation of land in Sy. No.3g2, 3g3 and 394 situated at Arwar Viilage, Markajgiri Division in pursuance to the notice vide fire No. Ft2629t2024, Dt.24t10r2024 without issuing notice to ail the concerned parties to the subject dispute rand as iiregar, Arbitrary, unconstitutionar and against the principars of naturar justice and consequenry direct the sth Respondent to consider the petitioner repryiobjection retter D|2911012024 to order notice to ail the concerned parties to the subject dispute land.

¶18

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto stay} all further^proceedings rn^pursuance to^{notice vide file NoF 1262912024,} Dt.24l1Ol2O24 issued by 5th Respondent^{for demarcation of land in Sy. No 392'} 393 and 394 situated at Alwal Village,^{It/alkajgiriDivision.}

¶21

Gounsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI M. V. RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

(- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 30640 of20241

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.5 in proceeding with the demarcation of land in Sy.Nos.392, 393 and 394 situated at Alwa-l Village, Malkajgiri Division, in pursuance of the notice in File No.F/2629/2024, dated. 24.IO.2O24 without issuing notice to all the concerned parties as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice ald consequently prayed to direct respondent No.5 to consider the petitioner's objections, dated 29.10.2024 to order notice to all the concerned parties to the subject 1and and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶27

It is stated that the alcestors of the petitioner were the pattadars arld possessors of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas in Sy.No.392 and Ac. 1.25 guntas in Sy.No.393 situated at Shivanagar, Khanajiguda, Alwat, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is further stated that certain civil disputes are pending between the descendants of Golla Mallaiah and third parties uideL.G.O.p.No.949 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri in respect

CVBR, J Wo 30640 2024

¶32

of larrd admeasuring Ac.1.3g guntas in Sy.No.392 and. a suit for partition and separate possession ulde O.S.No.5O3 of 2074 is pending before the principal District Judge, Malkajgiri in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1.25 guntas in Sy.No.393. It is further stated that acting on the <:omplaint submitted by Geddam Mallesh and basing on the report, dated 26.04.2024 submitted by the Mandal Girdawar and Surveyor, Alwal Mandal, the impugned r-rotice was issued to the petitioner stating that the land in Sy.Nos.392, 393 and 394 is to be surveyed on 06. ll.2024 and directing him to present on the spot on the said date along with connected documents. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing notice to all the interested persons/ stakeholders, the survey is going to be conducted on 06.11.2024.

¶33

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records,

¶35

¶36

¶37

CVBR, J wp 30640 _2024

¶38

exercising powers under the Telangana Survey and

¶39

Boundaries Act, 1923, issued circulars from time to time rride Rc.No.N1/6543/99 dated 25.O7.2OO1, Rc.No.N1/ l4O8/07 dated 13.O7.2007, a-nd

¶40

Rc.No.N2/ 1741/20IO dated 18.05.20 10 stipulating the conditions for conducting survey of private lands and as per the said circulars, notice has to be issued to all the interested persons/stakeholders before conducting survey, but in instant case, the respondents have not issued any notice to the parties who are contesting the matters rn L.G.O.P.No.949 of 2016 and O.S.No.5O3 of 2014, which are pending for adjudication in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.392 and 393, and as such the impugned notice is liable to be set aside

¶41

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has lairly conceded that no notice was issued to the parties to the L.G.O.P.No.949 of 2016 and O.S.No.503 of 2014, which are^pending 1n adjudication respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.392 and 393.

¶43

t I

¶44

¶45

C\TBR..I \,p i0640 2024

¶46

6 In view of the above submissions, this Cout is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.S is directed to proceed with the survey and demarcation of land in Sy.Nos.392, 393 and 394 situated at Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Division, in pursuance of the notice in File No.F/2629 /2024, only after issuing notices to

¶47

a-11 the interested parties and the adjacent pattadars, strictly in terms of a_foresaid circular instructions rssued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, from time to time, and after considering their objections, if any, in accordance with law.

¶48

7 . With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶49

B. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶50

any, shall stand closed

¶51

SD/.l. LAKSHMIBABU ASSISTANT REGIFTRAR //TRUE COPY// tgi SECTION OFFICER

¶52

¶53

\ 1 The Prl. Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat building, The State of^Telangana, Hyderabad

¶54

2 The District Collector, Medchal-fvlalkajgiri District

¶55

3 The Revenue Divisiori Officer, Malkajgiri Division, I\Iedchal-tvlalkajgiri District 4q The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The Deputy lnspector of Survey. Office of Revenue Divisional Office, Malkajgirr Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶56

b One CC to Sri tvl. V. Raj Kumar Gabriel, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

1. Two CD Copies TJ a BS

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:04t1112024

ORDER

WP.No.30640 of²⁰²⁴

' ti:; r'iiif:
:i'Z
B 7 llo! ?trlt c)
4
\J:. /'i
._.' r -r-
\l

¶64

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶65

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶66

\
+

G. Mallesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Mallesh 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

Duddella Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Manjala Pedda Timaiah Vs The State Of Telangana

S. Grasamma Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

Mohammed Yaseen Vs The State of Telangana

Muppidi Ambuja Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Gadasanthala Balakistiah , G. Balakrishna Vs State of Telangana