Disposed

Shamshu @ Mohammed. Shamshuddin, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2025WP/27796/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing revenue authorities to conduct a boundary survey of Sy.No. 141 in Puppalaguda Village on his F-Line application, which lay pending. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahsildar to consider the application and pass a reasoned order within forty-five working days.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to consider F-Line application and pass reasoned order with reasons if rejecting, within 45 working days; no costs.

Shamshu @ Mohammed. Shamshuddin, Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27796 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shamshu @ Mohammed Shamshuddin, S/o. Mohd lsmail,^aged6_0 y9ars. Occ. Labour, Rlo.8-2-293182/BBN/302, Bandaru Bal Reddy^{Nagar, Shaikpet,} Hyderabad, T.G

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue^{Department, TS} Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T.G

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Office at Kongarakalan lbrahimpatnam Ranga Reddy Dist., TG

¶13

3 The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District,^T.G 4 The Deputy Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Office Gandipet Mandal.^Ranga ReddY Dist ' TG

¶14

...RESP.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more^{particularly one in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action^{of the respondents more} particularly the respondent No.3 and 4 in not conducting the survey for^fixationof boundaries stones to the land in Sy., No. 141, situated^{at PuppalagudaVillage,} Gandipet Mandal, Manikonda Municipality,^{RangaReddy Dist.,TG,as per the} revenue records and village map, for locating the^{petitioneas housebearing Plot} No.25414 admsg..'100 Sq.,yards, whether it is situated in^{patta land Sy., No.141 or} in government land in Sy. , No. 146, in spite of receipt of^{F-Line applicationsvide} No DER022501134016, dated 29-01-2025, through^{MeeSeva, since then to till} this date, as highly illegal, arbitrary, bad^{and contrary to the provisionsof TS} Revenue Act and violation of the Articles of the^{Constitution of lndia and} consequently dlrect the respondents more^{particularlythe respondent No.3 and 4}

to fix the boundary stones^{to the patta land in Sy ,No 1 41} '^situatedat Puppalaguda Village^{Gandipet Mandal,t\ilanikondaMunicipality, RangaReddy} Dist., -LG. by conducting^{surveyas per the revenue recordsand villagemap} forthwith in accordance^{with law}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petrtion,the High court nraybe pleasedto} direct the respondents^{not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession} and enjoyment^{over the house bearing plot No.254l4'admsg,100Sq} 'yards'ⁱⁿ Sy,No's.1'16to1'18and136to'l43,situatedatPuppalagucaVillage'Gandipet Mandal, Manikonda^{Municipality, Ranga Reddy Dist,TGincluding demolitionin} any manner forthwtth.^{pendrngdisposalof the abovewrit petttlon}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. BETHI VENKATESWARLU}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI L. RAVINDER,AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶25

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶26

(

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.27796 OF 202s

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learncd counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue.

¶32

Petitio,er herein is craiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house in the plot bearing No.254 /4 admeasuring 100 sq.yards in Sv.No. i 16 to 1 1g and 136 to 143, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Manclal, Manikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, on the strength of registered sale deed bearing Documenr No.2856 of 2016, clated 06.06.2020. The 3r,r respondent has issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, III of l9o5 stating that petitioner encroached the land admeasuring B0 sq.yards in Sy.No. 146 and seven (07) days time r.r,as granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.O1 .2025. On consideration of the said explernation, vide proceedings dated 22.o8.2025' the 3'r respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the said property. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26294 of 2025. Vide order dated 02.09.2025, this Court disposed of the said r.r.rit petition granting iiberty to the petitioner to prefer zrn appeal u,ithirr tu,o (02) rveeks from the saicl

¶33

¶34

(

¶35

date and this court directed the appellatc auth.r itr. t. clispose of the said appeal u,ithin three (03) months. Whilc g,rantir.rg the said order, this Court granted protectiolt to the petitioner ht:rein. Now, he has file d the prcscnt ,'rit petit.ion seeking sur\ e-, ol- Sy.No. 141 of Puppalaguda Village by r.r,ay ol submitting Ir l_ine application vide I.D.No.TTDERO22SOl1340 16 dared 29.01.2025 claiming the subject propertl in S,v.No.l4l, r,vl-rich is a Governnrent land.

¶36

The subject l)ropertv is in puppalaguda Village u,hich comes under Manikonda Municipalit_v. A Circular was issuecl b-y CCLA vide Rc.No.N2/ 171l I lO, datccl I8.O5.20 l0 staring that conducting o[ su.r'cy in rcspect of the resicle,tiarl prots and also plots in Mur-ricipal area is not permissible. Ho."vcvcr, having received the said F Line application alor-rg u,ith Rs.2951, towards fee, the 3"1 rcsponclcnt should have informed the saicl f:rct to the petitioner herein instead of kecping it pending.

¶37

In the light ol thc same, the Writ petition s disposed of directing the 3.r rcspondent to consider the ilft,res.lrcl F_Line application sr-rbmitted by the petitioner and the recucst made by the petitioner and if l-rc is not inclined to accept thc rcclurr:st made bv the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons, pass a reasoned order and communir:ate the copv of the same to the pctitioner. He

¶38

¶39

¶40

shall complete the entire exercise u,ithin forty five⁽⁴⁵⁾ working days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be

¶41

no order as to costs

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, if an_v pending, shall stand

¶43

closecl

¶44

SD/.B. REKHA^RANI ISTANT RE

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department, TS Secretariat' at Hyderabad'} T-G

¶49

z. in-e oistrict^{Collector, Ranga Reddy-District, Office at Kongarakalan'} lbrahimpatnam^{Ranga Reddy Dist l G}

¶50

s ine fafisiroar,^{Gand-ipeti/aridit,Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District'T G} ; iii; D;ilU St;;t;;:^{M;;;;iH;*^,;'onicec"andipet Mandar'Ranga} Reddy Dist ,^TG

¶51

5 ci;;tCi;' sRl^{BETHIvENKATESWARLU,AdvocatetoPucl}

¶52

6 Two CCs to^{GP FoR REiiN"uelii'g'n'C""ttoi t'e Sta'teof T6langanaAT} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶53

Two CD CoPies

BM BS \q-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912025

<br>i
:t t GCI roi
i

ORDER

WP.No.27796 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

cog?eA \o fro*

Shamshu @ Mohammed. Shamshuddin, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshu @ Mohammed. Shamshuddin, 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

M/s. Novus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sriramula Bharathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Yemeni Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Telangana

Didige Jaipal Vs The State of Telangana

Kethavath Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Telangana